<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Stirlatez</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Stirlatez"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Stirlatez"/>
	<updated>2026-09-22T11:52:42Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Loughner&amp;diff=841021</id>
		<title>Talk:Jared Loughner</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Loughner&amp;diff=841021"/>
		<updated>2011-01-15T22:26:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Contradictory article */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Hi, sorry if my edits were along the wrong lines. Advice for future contributions please? [[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 11:34, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I also am confused why they were removed. I was homeschooled myself and am glad I was by my mother. Carlos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Response to both above:  everything in this entry should be limited to well-support facts, without any opinion.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:00, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OK, understood. But I thought that I referenced the leaked Dept. of Homeland Security report? (I know I referenced the Huffington Post - had to hold my nose while doing so!)[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 12:06, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an insufficient basis for making an allegation in an entry page about someone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:35, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:OK, that's cool. As you can see, I'm pretty new here. I'll have another read through the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 12:41, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does everyone claim he is a hard core Liberal? Other books he likes include Ayn Rand's first novel We the People and Hitler's Mein Kampf. He also wants a return to the gold exchange, a Libertarian point of view and he even claimed in on--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:05, 10 January 2011 (EST)e of his video's &amp;quot;don't accept federalist laws&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sign your name please. And also, if you look at [[Hitler]]'s entry here, you will see that Hitler founded the Nazi party on a largely ''socialist'' platform. [[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 11:56, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it is well known Hitler had many liberal viewpoints himself. [[User:CarlosMartinez|CarlosMartinez]] 11:58, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A lot of liberals don't accept federalist laws; a lot of liberals got to have that joint before breakfast; a lot of liberals fail to understand that their liberalism has its roots in [[Fascism]] and [[National Socialism]]; and I'm sure there's some liberals who want the return to the gold standard simply to get their hands on the taxes that go with it.  And there are some liberals - even those who come here - who are attempting to play down Loughner's liberalism to the point where he should be treated as just another victim of society.  The blame Bush/Palin game is going on right now, courtesy of the liberal left.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:59, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Karajou, modern liberalism does not have its foundations in Fascism and Nazism, that is a blatant lie with absolutely no logical evidence or merit, and you are only comparing an ideology you don't agree with to the most destructive, hateful and right wing ideology to grace the face of the planet. I never once attempted to downplay a murderer's ideology, I hope he rots in jail, but with the murder of a federal judge and a little girl he'll most likely be put to death. On the gold standard, the government won't just tax random gold, the money supply and value is based off that of gold. Libertarians love it because it takes power away from central and federal banks. -AdmiralDolphin&lt;br /&gt;
:Admiral, please open your mind and avoid [[liberal style]]. Yes it does and you can read all about it on Conservapedia. [[User:CarlosMartinez|CarlosMartinez]] 12:27, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic how a conservative wants a liberal to open their mind. And &amp;quot;yes it does&amp;quot; is the most childish argument I’ve ever heard.&lt;br /&gt;
:You're wrong, &amp;quot;Admiral&amp;quot;; the connections between fascism and liberalism are documented in this site, and they will be increased.  It is you who needs to open your mind.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:49, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ayn Rand and Mein Kampf are hardly liberal. The first is libertarian and the second fascist. But hey, this is conservapedia, so don't let the facts get in the middle of ideology. [[User:Philny|Philny]] 18:29, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nice dig Philny and Mein Kampf isn't liberal, it is....? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:33, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Since you didn't answer, Mein Kampf came from the head of the National '''Socialist''' German Workers Party. Not much separates liberals from socialists. But hey, you're just trolling so move on.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:05, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because it has the word Socialist it is automatically so, just like the USSR were republics, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is really democratic,  and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a republic. -AdmiralDolphin&lt;br /&gt;
::::And the only evidence that Nazism is on the right is because your Comrade Stalin said so.  While you're blocked, go read ''Mein Kampf'' and prove to me that Mr. Carpet Muncher was not a socialist.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:19, 11 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== article appears to have a mistake in it.  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I have not followed this story closely as I have been busy with other matters, the article does appear to have a mistake in it on a key point.  I will preface my commentary by saying that I do think that Loughner was probably an atheist, but again I have not followed this story closely.  Here is what I believe is probably the case with Loughner's military application and it comes from a Arizona source: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Loughner wrote that while he was at the Military Entrance Processing Station in Phoenix, where military applicants are screened for eligibility, he was given a &amp;quot;mini Bible&amp;quot; before being tested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I didn't write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None,&amp;quot; Loughner wrote.[http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/09/20110109jared-lee-loughner-gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting.html]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there are wars on and recruiters are under pressure to gain recruits and not interested having candidates write an attached essay as far as their worldview beliefs, I think this account is certainly plausible. Loughner does appear to be the type of person who would leave blank information on a application form rather than filling out an application fully.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:15, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Not sure what you're saying the mistake is ...?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CP says in the footnote: &amp;quot;AP story Also, in an application for the U.S. Army, Loughner said he had no religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although Loughner did not appear to take issue with what the recruiter wrote, at the same time, I can see a young person not wanting to confront an Army recruiter. Technically speaking though, Loughner left the religion box of the application blank and you have to infer that Loughner's silence concerning what the recruiter wrote is a consent to the accuracy of the recruiter's information for that part of the application - namely, what the recruiter wrote in the religion part of the application. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:49, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Of course, Lougher's statement relating to life having no meaning would be a very significant piece of evidence that would point to him being an atheist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:52, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::One friend described Loughner as an &amp;quot;ardent atheist,&amp;quot; and I doubt any nihilists believe in God!  But I agree that the Army application may not always perfectly capture an applicant's belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 13 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contradictory article ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are several problems here. While it is very well-established that Loughner was a nihilist as well as a pothead, I don't think we can go so far as to call him &amp;quot;left-wing,&amp;quot; nor can we derive anything terribly substantial from his publicly listed favorite books. User Jpatt brings up a good point; while the ''Communist Manifesto'' and ''Mein Kampf'' both espouse statist ideologies, atheist Ayn Rand's critically-acclaimed work ''We the Living'' is a clear diatribe against communism and state-run economies, a stark contrast to the prior two books. Personally I find it highly unlikely that a stoner like Loughner actually read any of these works or even understood the ideas they contain, and instead took delight in listing them purely for their high shock value, probably prescient of the fact that after the shooting his every published word would be studied and scrutinized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This being said, I am able to provide several reliable sources that attest to Loughner's anti-government leanings which I think will clearly occlude any consideration of him as &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;left-wing.&amp;quot;  Those close to him all agree on his unhealthy obsession with the oppression of the government and his propensity to rant against it:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/01/13/loughner-ex-girlfriend-says-he%E2%80%99s-faking-insanity-often-ranted-about-%E2%80%9Cthe-government%E2%80%9D/ FOX NEWS Radio: Loughner ex-girlfriend says he's faking insanity; often ranted about &amp;quot;the Government&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/09/arizona-suspected-gunman-no-stranger-to-trouble/ FOX NEWS: &amp;quot;Loughner is suspected of posting a series of YouTube videos that show a focus on literacy and currency -- as well as his distrust in the government.&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/08/shooting-suspects-apparent-youtube-video/ Loughner: FOX NEWS: &amp;quot;I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in god!&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:24, 15 January 2011 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Loughner&amp;diff=841020</id>
		<title>Talk:Jared Loughner</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Loughner&amp;diff=841020"/>
		<updated>2011-01-15T22:24:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Hi, sorry if my edits were along the wrong lines. Advice for future contributions please? [[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 11:34, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I also am confused why they were removed. I was homeschooled myself and am glad I was by my mother. Carlos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Response to both above:  everything in this entry should be limited to well-support facts, without any opinion.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:00, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OK, understood. But I thought that I referenced the leaked Dept. of Homeland Security report? (I know I referenced the Huffington Post - had to hold my nose while doing so!)[[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 12:06, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an insufficient basis for making an allegation in an entry page about someone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:35, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:OK, that's cool. As you can see, I'm pretty new here. I'll have another read through the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 12:41, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Liberal? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why does everyone claim he is a hard core Liberal? Other books he likes include Ayn Rand's first novel We the People and Hitler's Mein Kampf. He also wants a return to the gold exchange, a Libertarian point of view and he even claimed in on--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:05, 10 January 2011 (EST)e of his video's &amp;quot;don't accept federalist laws&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sign your name please. And also, if you look at [[Hitler]]'s entry here, you will see that Hitler founded the Nazi party on a largely ''socialist'' platform. [[User:Sophierabbitte|Sophierabbitte]] 11:56, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, it is well known Hitler had many liberal viewpoints himself. [[User:CarlosMartinez|CarlosMartinez]] 11:58, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A lot of liberals don't accept federalist laws; a lot of liberals got to have that joint before breakfast; a lot of liberals fail to understand that their liberalism has its roots in [[Fascism]] and [[National Socialism]]; and I'm sure there's some liberals who want the return to the gold standard simply to get their hands on the taxes that go with it.  And there are some liberals - even those who come here - who are attempting to play down Loughner's liberalism to the point where he should be treated as just another victim of society.  The blame Bush/Palin game is going on right now, courtesy of the liberal left.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:59, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Karajou, modern liberalism does not have its foundations in Fascism and Nazism, that is a blatant lie with absolutely no logical evidence or merit, and you are only comparing an ideology you don't agree with to the most destructive, hateful and right wing ideology to grace the face of the planet. I never once attempted to downplay a murderer's ideology, I hope he rots in jail, but with the murder of a federal judge and a little girl he'll most likely be put to death. On the gold standard, the government won't just tax random gold, the money supply and value is based off that of gold. Libertarians love it because it takes power away from central and federal banks. -AdmiralDolphin&lt;br /&gt;
:Admiral, please open your mind and avoid [[liberal style]]. Yes it does and you can read all about it on Conservapedia. [[User:CarlosMartinez|CarlosMartinez]] 12:27, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it ironic how a conservative wants a liberal to open their mind. And &amp;quot;yes it does&amp;quot; is the most childish argument I’ve ever heard.&lt;br /&gt;
:You're wrong, &amp;quot;Admiral&amp;quot;; the connections between fascism and liberalism are documented in this site, and they will be increased.  It is you who needs to open your mind.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:49, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ayn Rand and Mein Kampf are hardly liberal. The first is libertarian and the second fascist. But hey, this is conservapedia, so don't let the facts get in the middle of ideology. [[User:Philny|Philny]] 18:29, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nice dig Philny and Mein Kampf isn't liberal, it is....? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:33, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Since you didn't answer, Mein Kampf came from the head of the National '''Socialist''' German Workers Party. Not much separates liberals from socialists. But hey, you're just trolling so move on.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:05, 10 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because it has the word Socialist it is automatically so, just like the USSR were republics, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is really democratic,  and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a republic. -AdmiralDolphin&lt;br /&gt;
::::And the only evidence that Nazism is on the right is because your Comrade Stalin said so.  While you're blocked, go read ''Mein Kampf'' and prove to me that Mr. Carpet Muncher was not a socialist.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:19, 11 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== article appears to have a mistake in it.  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I have not followed this story closely as I have been busy with other matters, the article does appear to have a mistake in it on a key point.  I will preface my commentary by saying that I do think that Loughner was probably an atheist, but again I have not followed this story closely.  Here is what I believe is probably the case with Loughner's military application and it comes from a Arizona source: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Loughner wrote that while he was at the Military Entrance Processing Station in Phoenix, where military applicants are screened for eligibility, he was given a &amp;quot;mini Bible&amp;quot; before being tested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;I didn't write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None,&amp;quot; Loughner wrote.[http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/09/20110109jared-lee-loughner-gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting.html]  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since there are wars on and recruiters are under pressure to gain recruits and not interested having candidates write an attached essay as far as their worldview beliefs, I think this account is certainly plausible. Loughner does appear to be the type of person who would leave blank information on a application form rather than filling out an application fully.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:15, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Not sure what you're saying the mistake is ...?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CP says in the footnote: &amp;quot;AP story Also, in an application for the U.S. Army, Loughner said he had no religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although Loughner did not appear to take issue with what the recruiter wrote, at the same time, I can see a young person not wanting to confront an Army recruiter. Technically speaking though, Loughner left the religion box of the application blank and you have to infer that Loughner's silence concerning what the recruiter wrote is a consent to the accuracy of the recruiter's information for that part of the application - namely, what the recruiter wrote in the religion part of the application. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:49, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Of course, Lougher's statement relating to life having no meaning would be a very significant piece of evidence that would point to him being an atheist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:52, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::One friend described Loughner as an &amp;quot;ardent atheist,&amp;quot; and I doubt any nihilists believe in God!  But I agree that the Army application may not always perfectly capture an applicant's belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 13 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contradictory article ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are several problems here. While it is very well-established that Loughner was a nihilist as well as a pothead, I don't think we can go so far as to call him &amp;quot;left-wing,&amp;quot; nor can we derive anything terribly substantial from his publicly listed favorite books. User Jpatt brings up a good point; while the ''Communist Manifesto'' and &amp;quot;Mein Kampf&amp;quot; both espouse statist ideologies, atheist Ayn Rand's critically-acclaimed work &amp;quot;We the Living&amp;quot; is a clear diatribe against communism and state-run economies, a stark contrast to the prior two books. Personally I find it highly unlikely that a stoner like Loughner actually read any of these works or even understood the ideas they contain, and instead took delight in listing them purely for their high shock value, probably prescient of the fact that after the shooting his every published word would be studied and scrutinized.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This being said, I am able to provide several reliable sources that attest to Loughner's anti-government leanings which I think will clearly occlude any consideration of him as &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;left-wing.&amp;quot;  Those close to him all agree on his unhealthy obsession with the oppression of the government and his propensity to rant against it:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [FOX NEWS Radio: http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/01/13/loughner-ex-girlfriend-says-he%E2%80%99s-faking-insanity-often-ranted-about-%E2%80%9Cthe-government%E2%80%9D/ Loughner ex-girlfriend says he's faking insanity; often ranted about &amp;quot;the Government&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [FOX NEWS: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/09/arizona-suspected-gunman-no-stranger-to-trouble/ &amp;quot;Loughner is suspected of posting a series of YouTube videos that show a focus on literacy and currency -- as well as his distrust in the government.&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [FOX NEWS: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/08/shooting-suspects-apparent-youtube-video/ Loughner: &amp;quot;I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in god!&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:24, 15 January 2011 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Maher&amp;diff=537456</id>
		<title>Bill Maher</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Maher&amp;diff=537456"/>
		<updated>2008-10-16T21:03:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Maher.jpg|right|thumb|Bill Maher]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Bill Maher''' is a [[Socialism|socialist]], an [[agnostic]], comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later on the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]]. Maher is also currently the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'' on [[HBO]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Television shows &amp;amp; Other Media ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be called cowards. Maher expanded on his point, saying &amp;quot;''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''&amp;quot; [http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark made him too controversial for some of the show's most prominent advertisers. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, causing it to become unprofitable. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But I've often said that if I had &amp;amp;mdash; I have two dogs &amp;amp;mdash; if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, along with Larry Charles (&amp;quot;''[[Borat]]''&amp;quot; director), Bill Maher will be releasing a documentary lampooning religion. Set for an October release the film is called ''[[Religulous]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political claims and statements ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as &amp;quot;a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash.&amp;quot;{{fact}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. &amp;quot;Coco Johnsen&amp;quot;. However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html] Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Activists|Maher, Bill]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comedians]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Actors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Authors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Religulous&amp;diff=527000</id>
		<title>Talk:Religulous</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Religulous&amp;diff=527000"/>
		<updated>2008-09-30T22:23:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Is Bill Maher really outspokenly socialist? I've never heard him talk about his socialism, but he's obviously pretty liberal. Outspokenly liberal, perhaps? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Last time I checked, he was a libertarian. Not the same thing as a socialist, by a long shot. Bill Maher is outspoken in a lot of subjects. It doesn't make him a socialist. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:49, 26 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:He claims to be a libertarian, which is what got me to watch his show a few times. However, he's pretty anti-corpratist and economically liberal. A libertarian who's economically liberal is just a liberal. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 26 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Well then we should remain consistent because Bill Maher is called a socialist on [[Bill Maher|his own article]]. Last I checked however, someone who favors gonverment interference in economic issues, to whatever degree, is a socialist. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:23, 30 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Maher&amp;diff=511186</id>
		<title>Bill Maher</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Maher&amp;diff=511186"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T19:07:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Maher.jpg|right|thumb|Bill Maher]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Bill Maher''' is a [[Socialism|socialist]], comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later on the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]]. Maher is also currently the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'' on [[HBO]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Television shows &amp;amp; Other Media ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be called cowards. Maher expanded on his point, saying &amp;quot;''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''&amp;quot; [http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark made him too controversial for some of the show's most prominent advertisers. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, causing it to become unprofitable. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But I've often said that if I had &amp;amp;mdash; I have two dogs &amp;amp;mdash; if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, along with Larry Charles (&amp;quot;''[[Borat]]''&amp;quot; director), Bill Maher will be releasing a documentary lampooning religion. Set for an October release the film is called ''[[Religulous]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political claims and statements ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as &amp;quot;a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash.&amp;quot;{{fact}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. &amp;quot;Coco Johnsen&amp;quot;. However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html] Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Activists|Maher, Bill]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Comedians]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Actors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Authors]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secular_Study_of_Early_Islam&amp;diff=511181</id>
		<title>Secular Study of Early Islam</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secular_Study_of_Early_Islam&amp;diff=511181"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T19:01:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The study of the origins and development of early Islam can be said to fall into two major schools of thought. The first view  is the [[traditionalist]] [[Muslim]] [[pious]] view which argues that the Islam is unquestionably a work of divine origins revealed by the [[Islamic]] deity [[Allah]] to a 7th century [[Arab]] trader [[Muhammad]]. The other view is a [[secular]] scholastic view which seeks examine evidence and primary sources and apply the [[historical method]] to the study of the early origins and development of [[Middle Eastern]] religions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article will examine the secular scholastic aaproach to the study of early development of the Islamic religion leaving the traditionalist religious point of view to other articles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Challenges of historiography of Islam==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Islamic chronicles and literary sources starting in the 8th century present a vast collection of  anecdotal material from which pious religionist authors  have drawn from in order to forge a storyline for early Islam.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia  &amp;quot;Mohammed and Mohammedanism &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career. His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq (A.H. 151=A.D. 768), Wakidi (207=822), Ibn Hisham (213=828), Ibn Sa'd (230=845), Tirmidhi (279=892), Tabari (310-929), the &amp;quot;Lives of the Companions of Mohammed&amp;quot;, the numerous Koranic commentators [especially Tabari, quoted above, Zamakhshari 538=1144), and Baidawi (691=1292)], the &amp;quot;Musnad&amp;quot;, or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241=855), the collections of Bokhari (256=870), the &amp;quot;Isabah&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed&amp;quot;, by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the so-called Hadiths, or &amp;quot;traditions&amp;quot;, the historical value of which is more than doubtful. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secular scholars at first received traditionalist narratives at face value but more recently in the last centuries they have begun apply [[historical method|historical methodology]] to the history of the [[Middle East]] and have begun the task of  separating fact from fiction from traditional accounts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The task of recovery of verifiable historical events has been made difficult by a general unwillingness of the Islamic theological community to subject its accounts to historical methodology and scrutiny. In response to the examination of its cultural roots by non traditionalistic scholars, Muslim [[polemic]]ists have in many cases adopted an [[adversarial]] position aimed at discrediting and refuting any and all research that challenges traditional Islamic narration.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ibn Warraq The Need for Qur’anic Criticism &amp;quot;In recent years, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries (for example, Brunei) have established chairs of Islamic Studies in prestigious Western universities, which are encouraged to present a favorable image of Islam. Scientific research, leading to objective truth, no longer seems to be the goal. Critical examination of the sources or the Qur’an is discouraged. Scholars such as Daniel Easterman have even lost their posts for not teaching about Islam in the way approved by Saudi Arabia.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Problems of early Islamic sources ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. [[Ibn Ishaq]] who wrote the first biography of Mohammed was born about 717 and died in 767 . He thus wrote his acount over 100 years after Mohammed lived, making it impossible to have gained any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira as they would have all died themselves in the intervening century. Furthermore, no copies exist of Ibn Ishaq's work. All that survives are quotations of it in the History of [[al-Tabari]], who himself lived over two centuries after Ibn Ishaq (he died in 992). Thus the earliest biography of Mohammed of which copies still exist was written some 350 years after Mohammed lived. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While much credence is granted to [[Ibn Ishaq]] and ([[al-Tabari]] 's accounts of the life of Muhammad by Islamic traditionalist scholars , secular scholars have argued that their late placement on the Islamic historical timeline fails to corroborate any of the early events of the nascent religion and instead can only attest to the narrative that was adopted centuries later by [[Arabian]] transmitters. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800  By Jonathan Porter Berkey Published 2003 Cambridge University Press  p59 The earliest surviving Muslim sources are comparatively late, and so reflect less what happened than what later Muslims wanted to remember as having happened. This is a point which has been a staple of at least Western scholarship since lgnai Goldzihcr’s pioneering study of hadish (i.e., the “traditions” which purport to record the deeds and words of Muhammad and his companions), in which he demonstrated that many hadith were later fabrications, although the degree of the material’s unreliability has always been a matter of some debate. The point may be illustrated by a later and more precise, although more limited, discussion of one particular aspect of the narrative of Islamic origins. in which Crone pointed out how much of that narrative was a product of traditions which served to explain Koranic verses which, to later Muslim audiences, seemed opaque. In other words, the Koran and the exegetical problems it poses in some sense generated the stories that were used to explain them&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; . &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore as the earliest Islamic sources are dated between one hundred and fifty to three hundred years after the events which they purport to describe, legitimate questions can be raised as to their [[veracity]] and accuracy. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Yehuda D. Nevo]] &amp;quot;Towards a Prehistory of Islam,&amp;quot; Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994 p.108&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John Wansbrough]] The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978 p,119&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Patricia Crone]] Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987 p.204&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another problem with the traditional narratives is that not only are they dated centuries after the fact, they are not supported by any archeological evidence. For instance secular scholars have argued that despite its momentous place in Islamic history no copies of the Qur'an dated from within the first century in which it was claimed to have been compiled has even been discovered. Earlier than 750 A.D. (thus for more than 100 years after Muhammad's death) there exists no verifiable [[Islamic]] documents to [[corroborate]] the origins of the Islam. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John Wansbrough]] The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978 p,58-59&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Francis Edwards Peters]] &amp;quot;Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies&amp;quot; ''Since external evidence is necessary to [[corroborate]] a view derived solely from the [[Muslim]] literary account, lack of such corroboration is an important argument against that account's [[historicity]]. This approach is therefore more open than the 'traditional' to acceptance of an [[argument from silence|argumentum e silentio]]. For if we are ready to discount an uncorroborated report of an event, we must accept that there may be nothing with which to replace it: that the event simply did not happen. That there is no evidence for it outside of the &amp;quot;traditional account&amp;quot; thus becomes positive evidence in support of the [[hypothesis]] that it did not happen. A striking example is the lack of evidence, outside the Muslim literature, for the view that the Arabs were Muslim at the time of the Conquest.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As to the question of how were the stories transmitted , Muslim scholars posit that the foundational stories of early Islam would have been transmitted orally by storytellers allegedly over more than a century. Secular researchers argue that the oral method of transmission from storyteller to storyteller is problematic as such a medium can be reasonably expected to have been colored with local prejudices and tailored to the moods, needs, and expectations of their audiences. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam ''The sound historical tradition to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Patricia Crone's notes that the traditions have been reshaped by a progression of storytellers over hundreds of years &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980 pg 3&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skepticism about authorship of the Qur'an==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more contentious findings of secular scholars is that historical evidence suggests that the Qur'an as it exists today differs significantly from the text that was in existence in the late seventh century, the evidence suggesting that the text was a work still in progress over the eighth and ninth centuries &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Wansbrough,  Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977 pg.160-163&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; , for instance one of the early [[Arab]] observers in the late 7th century Ummayad court [[John of Damascus]] commented in his writings on sections of the Qur'an that existed during the age of  the [[Umayyad]] caliphate which have vanished in modern versions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John of Damascus &amp;quot;Concerning Heresy&amp;quot; (peri aireseon) – (Chapter 101) On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites. Circa 720 AD ''Then there is the book of The Camel of God. [112] About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secular scholars, such as [[John Wansbrough]], [[Michael Cook (historian)|Michael Cook]] and [[Patricia Crone]], have challenged traditionalistic notions that the text of the Qur'an would have been collected under Uthman per traditional accounts, since the earliest surviving copies of the complete Qur'an are centuries later than Uthman. (The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/texts/quran_1.shtml The Qur'an], ''bbc.co.uk'', retrieved February 17, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crone and Cook co-authored a book called ''[[Hagarism]]'' (1980), which was extremely controversial at the time, as it challenged not only Muslim orthodoxy, but the prevailing attitudes among secular Islamicists. They alleged that Islam was formed slowly, over the centuries after the Muslim conquests, as the Islamic conquerors elaborated their beliefs in response to Jewish and Christian challenges..&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;P. Crone and M. Cook, ''Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World'', 1977, Cambridge University Press &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus the general consensus is that the Qur'an was could not have been revealed to just one individual, but rather was a compilation of later redactions  formulated by a group of authors, over the course of a few hundred years&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Andrew Rippin]] , &amp;quot;Literary Analysis of Qur'an, Tafsir, and Sira, the Methodologies of John Wansbrough&amp;quot;, Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, Richard C. Martin (ed.), [[Tucson]], [[University of Arizona]] Press, 1985 pg 155 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Andrew Rippin  Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, vol. 1, London, Routledge, 1990 Pg 60&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Wansbrough,  Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977 pg 160-163&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolutionary hypothesis  ==&lt;br /&gt;
In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of [[San'a]], in [[Yemen]], laborers stumbled upon a &amp;quot;paper grave&amp;quot; containing tens of thousands of fragments of parchment on which verses of the Qur'an were written. Some of these fragments were believed to be the oldest Quranic texts yet found. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The European scholar [[Gerd R. Puin]] has studied these fragments and published some preliminary findings:&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Atlantic Monthly 1999 What is the Koran &amp;quot;My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.” [http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The variations from the received text that he found seemed to match minor variations in sequence reported by some Islamic scholars, in their descriptions of the variant Qur'ans once held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and [[Ali ibn Abi Talib|Ali]], and suppressed by Uthman's order.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San'a''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Qur'an as Text'', ed. Wild, Brill, 1996 ISBN 90-04-10344-9&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Birth of the Islamic identity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secular scholars pinpoint the actual beginnings of the classical Islamic identity to the ninth century, thus the formative stage of Islam, was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of two to three centuries &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;R. Stephen Humphreys Islamic History, a framework for Enquiry, Princeton, 1991 pg.83-89&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Dome of the Rock ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was built by Abd al-Malik in 691 and still is an imposing structure even by nowadays standard. First, we have to notice that the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque since it hasn't any prayer's direction, suggesting it was built as an octagon with eight pillars to walk around.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muslims contend that it was erected to commemorate the night when Muhammad went up to the heaven to speak with Moses and Allah concerning the number of prayers required for the believers. But, according to the researches made by Van Berchem and Yehuda Nevo, the inscriptions found there say nothing about the Mi'raj but rather attest the messianic status of Jesus, the acceptance of the prophets, Muhammad's receipt of revelation, and the use of the terms Islam and Muslim. Why, if it was erected to commemorate the Mi'raj does it say nothing about it ? This imposing structure built so early suggests that this and not Mecca became the first sanctuary and the center of nascent Islam until at least the late 7th century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717, went to Mecca to ask about the HAJJ. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow Abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock). This fact alone, points out Dr. Hawting, indicates that there was still some confusion as where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early 8th century. One can understand why, according to the tradition, WALID I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 wrote to all regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques. Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca ? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Quran.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Dr. John Wansbrough, an absolute authority on early Islamic tradition, found interesting observances as to this man Muhammad was. The best non-Muslim sources on this period which we have are those provided by the Arabic rock inscriptions scattered all over the Syro-Jordanian deserts and the Peninsula , especially the Negev desert. The late Yehuda Nevo, from the University of Jerusalem, made extensive research and published his results in 1994 book Toward a Prehistory of Islam, which I'll refer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule (7th to 8th century) a monotheist creed demonstrably not Islam, but a creed from which Islam could have developed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also found in all Arab religious institutions during the SUFYANI period (661-684) a complete absence of reference to Muhammad or any Mohammedans formulae that he is the prophet of God. This is true, until around 691, whether the main purpose of the inscription is religious or simply commemorative, such as the inscription at the dam near Ta'if, built by the Caliph Muâwiya in the 660's. How come that Muhammad's name is absent on all early inscriptions, is significant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of Allah) is found on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalib ben Abdallah from the year 690, which was struck in Damascus . The Triple Confession of Faith, including the Tawhid (God is one), the phrase setting that Muhammad is His prophet and the human nature of Jesus (rasul Allah wa-abduhu) is found in Abd al-Malik's inscription in the Dome of the Rock, dated 691. BEFORE THIS, THE MUSLIM CONFESSION OF FAITH CANNOT BE ATTESTED AT ALL. After that, through the MAARWANID dynasty (until 750), Muhammad's name usually occurs whenever religious formulae are used, such as coins, milestones and papyrus protocols. Yet, the first Arabic papyrus, an Egyptian receipt for taxes paid, dated 642, written in both Greek and Arabic is headed by the BASMALA, yet it is neither Christian nor Muslim in character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rock inscriptions, though bearing religious texts, never mention the prophet or the Mohammedan's formulae, a full 30-60 years and more after the death of Muhammad, though they contained a monotheist form of belief developed with a Judaeo-Christian literary style. What's more, when the formulae is introduced during the MARWANID period (after 684) it is carried almost overnight. Suddenly, it became the state's only form of official religious declaration. Then again, they were not accepted by the public so promptly.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Y. Nevo, the Mohammedan's formulae only began to be used in popular inscriptions sometime during the reign of Caliph Hisham (724-743). EVEN THESE, THOUGH THEY ARE MOHAMMEDANS, ARE NOT MUSLIM. For that, Nevo believes, we must wait until the beginning of the 9th century (around 822), coinciding with the first written Quran, as well as the first traditional Muslim accounts. It thus seems that it was not during his lifetime that Muhammad was elevated to the position of a universal prophet and, EVEN THEN, THE FORMULAE WHICH WAS INTRODUCED WAS STILL NOT EQUIVALENT WITH THAT WHICH WE HAVE TODAY&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Missing first century evidence ==&lt;br /&gt;
Crone, Wansbrough and Nevo argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150-300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Yehuda D. Nevo]] &amp;quot;Towards a Prehistory of Islam,&amp;quot; Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994 p.108&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John Wansbrough]] The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978 p,119&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Patricia Crone]] Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987 p.204&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The absence of any Islamic corroborating material for the first century of the alleged time line of Islam has raised numerous questions as to the authenticity of the material provided by traditionalist sources. Secular scholars point out that the earliest account of Mohammad's life by [[Ibn Ishaq]] was written more than a century after Muhammad died and all later narratives by Islamic biographers contain far more details and embellishments about events which are entirely lacking in Ibn Ishaq's text.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Patricia Crone, [[Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam]], pp. 203-30), where she argues that much of the classical Muslim understanding of the Koran rests on the work of storytellers and that this work is of very dubious historical value. These storytellers contributed to the tradition on the rise of Islam, and this is evident in the steady growth of information: &amp;quot;If one storyteller should happen to mention a raid, the next storyteller would know the date of this raid, while the third would know everything that an audience might wish to hear about it.&amp;quot; 53 Then, comparing the accounts of the raid of Kharrar by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, Crone shows that al-Waqidi, influenced by and in the manner of the storytellers, &amp;quot;will always give precise dates, locations, names, where Ibn Ishaq has none, accounts of what triggered the expedition, miscellaneous information to lend color to the event, as well as reasons why, as was usually the case, no fighting took place. No wonder that scholars are fond of al-Waqidi: where else does one find such wonderfully precise information about everything one wishes to know? But given that this information was all unknown to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme. And if spurious information accumulated at this rate in the two generations between Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
==Examination of Non Muslim sources ==&lt;br /&gt;
Another school of secular study of the origins of the Qur'an has focused on the examination of the vast body of the [[Greek]], [[Armenian]], [[Hebrew]], [[Aramaic]], [[Syriac]] and [[Coptic]] accounts of non-Muslim neighbors the 7th and 8th centuries which in many cases contradict the traditional Islamic narratives. Historian Patricia Crone for instances argues that the consistency of the non-Muslim sources spread over a large geographic area would tend to rule out a non-Muslim anti-Islamic motive to these sources.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Patricia Crone]], [[Slaves on Horses]], pp. 15-16. ''All the while that Islamic historians have been struggling with their inert tradition, they have had available to them the Greek, Armenian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Coptic literatures of non-Muslim neighbors and subjects of the Arab conquerors, to a large extent edited and translated at the end of the last century and the beginning of the present, and left to collect dust in the libraries ever since. It is a striking testimony to the suppression of the non-Islamic Middle East from the Muslim sources that not only have these literatures been ignored for questions other than the chronology of the conquests and the transmission of Greek philosophy and science, but they have also been felt to be rightly ignored. Of course these sources are hostile, and from a classical Islamic view they have simply got everything wrong; but unless we are willing entertain the notion of an all-pervading literary conspiracy between the non-Muslim peoples of the Middle East, the crucial point remains that they have got things wrong on very much the same points. That might not, it is true, have impressed the medieval Muslims who held the Jews and Christians capable of having maliciously deleted from their scriptures precisely the same passages relating to the coming of Islam; but as the Jews and Christians retorted, given their wide geographical and social distribution, they could scarcely have vented their anti-Muslim feelings with such uniform results. It is because there is agreement between the independent and contemporary witnesses of the non-Muslim world that their testimony must be considered; and it can hardly be claimed that they do not help: whichever way one chooses to interpret them, they leave no doubt that Islam was like other religions the product of a religious evolution.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:Of course these sources are hostile, and from a classical Islamic view they have simply got everything wrong; but unless we are willing entertain the notion of an all-pervading literary conspiracy between the non-Muslim peoples of the Middle East, the crucial point remains that they have got things wrong on very much the same points. That might not, it is true, have impressed the medieval Muslims who held the Jews and Christians capable of having maliciously deleted from their scriptures precisely the same passages relating to the coming of Islam; but as the Jews and Christians retorted, given their wide geographical and social distribution, they could scarcely have vented their anti-Muslim feelings with such uniform results. It is because there is agreement between the independent and contemporary witnesses of the non-Muslim world that their testimony must be considered; and it can hardly be claimed that they do not help: whichever way one chooses to interpret them, they leave no doubt that Islam was like other religions the product of a religious evolution..&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Patricia Crone]], [[Slaves on Horses]], pp. 15-16&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The anti-traditionalist banner dropped by Crone and Cook has been taken up by scholars such as [[Christoph Luxenberg]], who supports claims for a late composition of the Qur'an, and traces much of it to [[The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran|sources other than Muhammad]]. Luxenberg in particular is well-known for his claims that the Qur'an is merely a re-working of an earlier Christian text, a [[Syriac language|Syriac]] [[lectionary]]. See also [[Gerd R. Puin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur'an 2007 English edition&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Fred Donner]] has argued for an early date for the collection of the Qur'an, based on his reading of the text itself. He points out that if the Qur'an had been collected over the tumultuous early centuries of Islam, with their vast conquests and expansion and bloody incidents between rivals for the caliphate, there would have been some evidence of this history in the text. However, there is nothing in the Qur'an that does not reflect what is known of the earliest Muslim community.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing'', Donner, Darwin Press, 1998, p. 60., ISBN 0-87850-127-4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Early influence on the Qur'an ==&lt;br /&gt;
According to the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08692a.htm Koran], by Gabriel Oussani, ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'', retrieved April 13, 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and modern secular scholars &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Martin Bright The great Koran con trick ''The new Statesment Dec 2001&lt;br /&gt;
With no contemporary Muslim sources to refer to, a group of young historians working under the brilliant linguist Professor John Wansbrough at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in the Seventies developed new scholarly techniques, drawing heavily on earlier biblical scholarship. Following Wansbrough's lead, they decided to look at the Koran as a literary text, to compare it to other devotional writings of the period and to look at internal clues to its origin. They found that it owed much to Judaism, especially the Talmud, a collection of commentaries and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the text in the Qu'ran is traced to six sources: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The [[Old Testament]] [[canonical]] and [[apocryphal]] and the hybrid [[Judaism]] of the late rabbinical schools. During Muhammad's time the [[Jew]]s were numerous in many parts of [[Arabia]], especially around [[Medina]]. Later Judaism and [[Rabbinism]] are equally well represented. [[Geiger]] finds parallels between parts of the Koran and Jewish [[Agada|Agadot]] including Medrashim such as the Medrash Tanchuma. He posits that some of the other parts of the Koran may come from Medrashim that were lost. He cites stylistic connections between the Medrashim and the Koran &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Geiger, &amp;quot;Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen?&amp;quot;, Wiesbaden, 1833; tr. Judaism and Islam, Madras, 1898&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''[[What the Koran Really Says]]: Language, Text, and Commentary'', edited and translated by, Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, 2002, 600 pages, ISBN 1-57392-945-X&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The [[New Testament]] (canonical and apocryphal). On his journeys between [[Syria]], [[Hijaz]], and [[Yemen]], [[Muhammad]] had opportunity to come in close touch with [[Yemenite]], [[Abyssinian]], [[Ghassanite]], and [[Syrian]] [[Christians]], especially heretic.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sabaism]], a combination of [[Judaism]], [[Manicheism]], and [[Babylonian]] [[polytheism]].{{Fact|date=September 2007}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Zoroastrianism]].  One suggestion of Zoroastrian influence on Islam is based on the conclusion by the Jewish orientalist, [[Ignaz Goldziher]], in his book &amp;quot;''Islamisme et Parsisme''&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;I. Goldziher, &amp;quot;Islamisme et Parsisme&amp;quot;, ''Revue De L'Histoire Des Religions'', 1901, Volume XLIII, pp. 1-29.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the incident of [[Isra and Mi'raj|Isra]] and [[Mai'raj]] in Islam (Muhammad's ascension to the heavens) resembles the Iranian &amp;quot;[[Divina Commedia]]&amp;quot; called ''[[Arda Wiraz Namag]]''. [[Ibn Warraq]] quoted the Christian missionary, [[William St. Clair Tisdall|Tisdall]], on this, claiming that the book Arda Wiraz Namag was composed 400 years after Muhammad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:However, in this regard, [[Encyclopaedia Iranica]] states that: &amp;quot;''The [[Arda Wiraz-namag]], like many of the Zoroastrian works, underwent successive redactions. It assumed its definitive form in the 9th-10th centuries AD''&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Arda Wiraz&amp;quot;, ''Encyclopaedia Iranica'', 1987, Volume II, Routledge &amp;amp; Kegan Paul: London &amp;amp; New York, p. 357.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Gignoux]] says the following about the same: &amp;quot;''It is known that the whole of the [[Pahlavi]] literature was written tardily, roughly speaking after the Muslim conquest, and that it however transmitted extremely old traditions to us, from [[Sassanide]] and even pre-Sassanide times''&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;P. Gignoux, &amp;quot;Notes Sur La Redaction De L'Arday Viraz Namag: L'Emploi De Hamê Et De Bê&amp;quot;, ''Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft'', 1969, Supplementa I, Teil 3, pp. 998-999&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hanifism]], the adherents of which, called [[Hanif|Hanīf]]s,  must have been considerable in number and influence, as it is known from contemporary Arabian sources that twelve of Mohammed's followers were members of this sect.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
*Native ancient and contemporary Arabian polytheistic beliefs and practices. [[Wellhausen]] has collected in his &amp;quot;Reste des arabischen Heidentums&amp;quot; (Berlin, 1897) all that is known of pre-Islamic Arabian religious belief, traditions, customs, and superstitions, many of which are either alluded to or accepted and incorporated in the Qu'ran. From the various sects and creeds, and [[Abul Fida Ismail Ibn Hamwi|Abul-Fida]], the well-known historian and geographer of the thirteenth century, it is clear that religious beliefs and practices of the Arabs of Mohammed's day form one of the many sources of Islam. From this source Islam derived the practices of polygamy and slavery, which Mohammed sanctioned by adopting them.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}&lt;br /&gt;
=== Similarities to the Bible ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an}}&lt;br /&gt;
Skeptical scholars account for the many similarities between the Qur'an and the Jewish and Hebrew scriptures by saying that Muhammad was teaching what he believed a universal history, as he had heard it from the Jews and Christians he had encountered in Arabia and on his travels. These scholars also disagree with the Islamic belief that the whole of the Qur'an is addressed by God to humankind. They note that there are numerous passages where God is directly addressed, or mentioned in the third person, or where the narrator swears by various entities, including God.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Textual Evidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Qur'an has much common theology, narratives, and commands as the [[Bible]] as well as non-canonical Jewish and Christian documents that have no historical validity. (See [[Legends and the Qur'an]].) Critics write that Muhammad did not know these documents were faulty and used them. Because they are not historically accurate, the Qur'an cannot be historically accurate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Oldest copy known today==&lt;br /&gt;
Several manuscripts, including the [[Samarkand manuscript]], are claimed to be the original copies sent out by Uthman&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss The Qur'anic Manuscripts], ''islamic-awareness.org'', retrieved April 2, 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in the 7th century CE. Some non-Muslim scholars, however, doubt that any of the Uthmanic originals remain. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having studied early Quran manuscripts [[John Gilchrist (Islamic Studies)|John Gilchrist]] states: &amp;quot;The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death.&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Jam' Al-Qur'an&amp;quot;, page 153) He comes to this conclusion because two of the oldest manuscripts, the Samarqand and Topkapi codices are both written in the [[Kufic|Kufic script]]. It &amp;quot;can generally be dated from the late eight century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case.&amp;quot; (Ibid. page 146) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the copies that were destroyed, Islamic traditions say that [[Abdallah Ibn Masud]], [[Ubay Ibn Ka'b]], and [[Ali ibn Abi Talib|Ali]], Muhammad's son-in-law, had preserved versions that differed in some ways from the Uthmanic text. Muslim scholars record certain of the differences between the versions; those recorded consist almost entirely of orthographical and lexical variants, or different verse counts. All three (Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali) are recorded as having accepted the Uthmanic text as authoritative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Uthman's version was written in an older Arabic script that left out most vowel markings; thus the script could be interpreted and read in various ways. This basic Uthmanic script is called the [[rasm]]; it is the basis of several traditions of oral recitation, differing in minor points.The Quran is always written in the Uthmanic [[Rasm]](Rasm al Uthman). In order to fix these oral recitations and prevent any mistakes, scribes and scholars began annotating the Uthmanic rasm with various [[Diacritic|diacritical marks]] indicating how the word was to be pronounced. It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 CE, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 CE. The Quran text most widely used today is based on the [[Rasm Uthmani]](Uthmanic way of writing the Quran) and in the Hafs tradition of recitation, as approved by [[Al-Azhar University]] in Cairo in 1922. (For more information regarding traditions of recitations, see ''Quranic recitation'', below.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sources ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{sourcesstart}}&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Quest for the Historical Muhammed]]'', edited and translated by Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, 2000, hardcover, 554 pages, ISBN 1-57392-787-2&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Origins of the Koran]]: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book'', edited by Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, 1998, hardcover, 420 pages, ISBN 1-57392-198-X&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World]]'', Patricia Crone (1980)&lt;br /&gt;
* M. M. Azami, ''The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments'', UK Islamic Academy, 2003 pp. 12&lt;br /&gt;
* ''What is the origin of man?: The answers of science and the Holy Scriptures'', by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, Publisher: A.S. Noordeen, ISBN B0007-C9WF-A&lt;br /&gt;
{{sourcesend}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.consider.net/forum_new.php3?Action=Display&amp;amp;newDisplayURN=200112100017 &amp;quot;The great Qu'ran con trick&amp;quot;], by Martin Bright, ''consider.net'', December 10, 2001, retrieved April 08, 2006&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sunnipath.com/library/QuranHome.aspx?leftNavID=2 A number of works on the Qur'an, including vonDenffer's Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an - at SunniPath.com]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ Examining the Qur'an] - from Islamic-Awareness.org&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/sacredthemesionly.html Several early Qur'ans: information, zoomable images] British Library website&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Islam]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[de:Geschichte des Korantexts]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Linda_Ronstadt&amp;diff=511180</id>
		<title>Linda Ronstadt</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Linda_Ronstadt&amp;diff=511180"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T19:01:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Linda Marie Ronstadt''' was born in [[Tucson]], [[Arizona]] on July 15, 1946. Raised on the family ranch, as a teenager Linda with her brother and sister began performing a local venues, calling themselves The New Union Ramblers. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At seventeen she moved to [[Los Angeles]] where she would become lead singer of the folk rock group The Stone Poneys, who would first hit with “Different Drum” in 1967.  As a solo artist, Linda Ronstadt topped the Hit Parade in 1974 with “You’re No Good.” The following year “When Will I Be Loved” earned her another gold record with “Heat Wave” also selling a million in 1975. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Still two more top five hits, “Blue Bayou” and “It’s So Easy” in 1977 with “Ooh Baby Baby” another gold single in 1978.  “How Do I Make You” and “Hurt So Bad” followed in 1980. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among Linda's other single successes are, &amp;quot;Long Long Time,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Tracks of My Tears,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;That'll Be The Day,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Poor Poor Pitiful Me,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Back In The U.S.A.&amp;quot; and teaming with James Ingram, &amp;quot;Somewhere Out There&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Don't Know Much.&amp;quot;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Selling in excess of one hundred million albums and setting records as one of the top-grossing concert performers for a decade, Linda Ronstadt is the most successful female rock singer of the 70’s, earning her multiple [[Grammy Award|Grammy Awards]] and an [[Emmy Award|Emmy]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently Linda has reportedly moved from [[San Francisco]], returning to Tucson.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0740168/ - imdb biography&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/lindaronstadt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ronstadt, Linda}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Women Singers]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=University_of_Arizona&amp;diff=511164</id>
		<title>University of Arizona</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=University_of_Arizona&amp;diff=511164"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T18:50:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{University&lt;br /&gt;
|name=University of Arizona&lt;br /&gt;
|image=ArizonaSeal.gif&lt;br /&gt;
|text=#CC0033&lt;br /&gt;
|background=#003366&lt;br /&gt;
|type=Public&lt;br /&gt;
|city=[[Tucson]], [[Arizona]]&lt;br /&gt;
|sports=baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, gymnastics, soccer, softball, swimming/diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arizonaathletics.com/home/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|colors=red, blue&lt;br /&gt;
|mascot=Wilbur Wildcat (Wildcats)&lt;br /&gt;
|website=http://www.arizona.edu/&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
The '''University of Arizona''' (or UA) is an [[Arizona]] [[public school|public]] [[university]] established in 1885.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.arizona.edu/home/aboutua.php|title=About the UA|format=HTML|work=University of Arizona|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
The school ranked #96 in US News's 2008 &amp;quot;National Universities: Top Schools&amp;quot; list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php|title=National Universities: Top Schools|work=US News|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
Three (primary) Arizona cities ([[Tucson]], [[Phoenix_%28city%29|Phoenix]] and [[Prescott]]), were vying for two prizes: either an asylum or the capital. Phoenix was given the asylum, and a $100,000 appropriation; Prescott was given the capital; and C.C. Stevens, who was Tuscon's representative, returned to Tuscon with the rights to the new university, and a mere $25,000 for it (some reports have citizens showering Stevens with ripe eggs, rotten vegetables and a dead cat).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.arizona.edu/tours/history/index.php|work=University of Arizona|title=UA History: A Proud Beginning|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The university would open its doors 6 years later in 1891.&amp;lt;Ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|work=University of Arizona|title=The Old Main|format=HTML|url=http://www.arizona.edu/tours/history/history3.php|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first graduating class consisted of only 3 people (down from the 6 who were admitted): Mercedes Anna Shibell, Charles Oma Rouse and Mary Flint Walker.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|work=University of Arizona|title=The First Graduating Class, 1895|url=http://www.arizona.edu/tours/history/history5.php|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Athletics==&lt;br /&gt;
UA's football program has won 5 bowl games (while losing 7 and tying 1).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/database/arizona_database.htm|work=National Champs|title=ARIZONA FOOTBALL HISTORY DATABASE|language=English|format=HTML}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; basketball program won a national championship in 1997.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/history|work=NCAA|title=History - Past Champions|language=English|format=HTML}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Nb_US_universities}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shelley_Duncan&amp;diff=511163</id>
		<title>Shelley Duncan</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shelley_Duncan&amp;diff=511163"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T18:49:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Shelley Duncan''' (born September 29, 1979, in [[Tucson]], [[Arizona]]) is a [[Major League Baseball]] (MLB) first baseman and outfielder for the [[New York Yankees]]. He is known for his power and for his &amp;quot;arm slams&amp;quot; in the dugout during Yankees games, which have lead to his nickname, Slam Duncan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=455167 MLB.com Player Bio]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Duncan, Shelley}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Baseball Players]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New York Yankees Players]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Arizona_Diamondbacks&amp;diff=511161</id>
		<title>Arizona Diamondbacks</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Arizona_Diamondbacks&amp;diff=511161"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T18:48:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:ArizonaDiamondbacks.png|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
The ''' Arizona Diamondbacks ''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team in the [[National League]], West Division. The Arizona Diamondbacks are based in [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Chase Field is the home of Arizona Diamondbacks, 1998 to present.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''World Series Titles:''' 1 (2001) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''National League Pennants:''' 1 (2001) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Playoffs:''' 4 (1999, 2001, 2002, 2007) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Team motto:''' The Future Is Now. &lt;br /&gt;
== Current Roster==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;*Not on active roster&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;**Not on 40 man roster&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Pitchers===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Brandon Webb&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Dan Haren&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Randy Johnson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Doug Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Yusmeiro Petit&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Juan Cruz&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Wilfredo Ledezma&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Brandon Lyon&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Tony Pena&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Chad Qualls&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Jon Rauch&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Max Scherzer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Catchers===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Miguel Montero&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Chris Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Infielders===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Chad Tracy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Chris Burke&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Augie Ojeda&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Stephen Drew&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Mark Reynolds&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Tony Clark&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Outfielders===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Conor Jackson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Chris Young&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Adam Dunn&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Justin Upton&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Jeff Salazar&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Designated Hitters===&lt;br /&gt;
n/a&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor League Affiliates==&lt;br /&gt;
The minor league affiliates of the Diamondbacks are:&lt;br /&gt;
*AAA - [[Tucson]] Sidewinders&lt;br /&gt;
*AA - Mobile BayBears&lt;br /&gt;
*A Adv. - Visalia Oaks&lt;br /&gt;
*A - South Bend Silver Hawks&lt;br /&gt;
*SS - Yakima Bears&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Florida Marlins ]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Pittsburgh Pirates]] 	&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Colorado Rockies]] &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Cincinnati Reds]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=ari Official Team Website]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Nb_sl_mlb_national}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arizona]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=David_Gregory&amp;diff=511159</id>
		<title>David Gregory</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=David_Gregory&amp;diff=511159"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T18:48:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''David Gregory''' is Chief White House Correspondent for [[NBC News]]. He is generally considered one of the more liberal correspondents for the network. Gregory is married and has three children who reside in [[Washington D.C.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gregory graduated from The American University in [[Washington, D.C.]] with a bachelor’s degree in International Studies. His journalism career began at the early age of nineteen when he began work at a [[ABC]] affiliate station in [[Tucson]], [[Arizona]]( KGUN-TV). In 1995, he was hired by NBC news, where he worked as a correspondent based in [[Los Angeles]] and [[Chicago]]. During his first years at the network, he covered such stories as the [[Oklahoma City bombing]], President Clinton impeachment,  the [[O.J. Simpson]] trial and the death of the Pope.  In 1998, he moved up the ranks of the network and was hired as anchor for NBC’s cable station, [[MSNBC]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000 Gregory was promoted to Chief White House Correspondent, a job which was formerly held by [[Andrea Mitchell]]. During the 2000 campaign he covered [[George W. Bush]]. During the attacks on September 11, 2001, Gregory was with the newly elected president in Florida, and later was the only reporter to accompany the president to the World Trade Center site three days after the tragedy. In 2002, he traveled with Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] around the Middle East before the [[Iraq War]].  In 2004 Gregory again covered President Bush and his campaign against Senator [[John Kerry]]. A Tyndall Report found that he was the most used correspondent on television during this time. He began serving as a substitute anchor for NBC shows, Today, [[Meet the Press]], “Imus in the Morning” and [[Nightly News]] in 2005, and continues to do so today. He also is a political commentator for Hardball; a show moderated by liberal [[Chris Matthews]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Awards==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gregory and his colleagues received an Emmy award for their coverage of former President [[Ronald Reagan]]’s death.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics questions the bias of Gregory reporting. They site his questions and attitude of seemingly disrespect towards the president and administration, and his liberal slant he places on his reports. At one press conference Gregory asked Bush, “why [do] you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?” , Bush responded by saying he reads intelligence, and went on to say that, “terrorist are a threat to your children, David, and whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10903.html,&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At one point Gregory interrupted the president in a press conference to ask if was going to change his administration cabinet. Bush joked that he was, “not going to hire you[David], if that's what you were suggesting,”. The joke came after Bush had hired former [[Fox News]] reporter Tony Snow. Gregory responded by saying, “I was not suggesting that.” Bush ended the conversation by stating, &amp;quot;I would, except you can't pass the background check. Okay, an unnecessary cheap shot, I take it back.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/5133 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gregory has been known to do an impersonation of President Bush, which many people find insulting and disrespectful both to the president and [[America]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/west_wing_reportage/david_gregorys_bush_impersonation_45620.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gregory, David}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biographies]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Broadcasters]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barry_Goldwater&amp;diff=511158</id>
		<title>Barry Goldwater</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barry_Goldwater&amp;diff=511158"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T18:47:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:BarryGoldwater.jpg|right|thumb|Barry Goldwater]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barry Morris Goldwater''' (1909-1998) was a [[United States]] [[Senator]] and the [[Republican]] nominee for [[President]] in 1964.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Biography==&lt;br /&gt;
Born in a [[Jewish]] family.  Father of Barry Morris Goldwater, Jr., a [[U.S. Senator]] from [[Arizona]]; born in Phoenix, Maricopa County, Ariz., January 1, 1909; attended the Phoenix public schools, Staunton Military Academy, and one year at the University of Arizona at [[Tucson]] in 1928; began business career in 1929 in family mercantile business; during the Second World War entered active service in August 1941 in the United States Army Air Corps, serving in the Asiatic Theater in India, and was discharged in November 1945 as a lieutenant colonel with rating as pilot; organized the Arizona National Guard 1945-1952; brigadier general in the Air Force Reserve in 1959 and promoted to major general in 1962; retired in 1967 after thirty-seven years service; member of advisory committee, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior 1948-1950; member of the city council of Phoenix 1949-1952; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1952; reelected in 1958, and served from January 3, 1953, to January 3, 1965; did not seek reelection to the Senate in 1964; unsuccessful Republican nominee for President in 1964; elected to the United States Senate in 1968; reelected in 1974 and again in 1980, and served from January 3, 1969, to January 3, 1987; did not seek reelection in 1986; chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence (Ninety-seventh and Ninety-eighth Congresses), Committee on Armed Services (Ninety-ninth Congress); awarded the [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]] on March 12, 1986; died May 29, 1998, at Paradise Valley, Ariz.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==1964 Presidential campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
Barry Goldwater entered the United States Senate in 1953.  During the 1960 Presidential election there was a campaign among [[conservative]]s to draft Goldwater for President, a race in which [[Richard Nixon]] ultimately won the Republican nomination and [[John F. Kennedy]] narrowly defeated him for President.  The campaign to draft Goldwater to run for President continued in the next election cycle.  In 1964 Goldwater seriously sought the nomination, not running for re-election to the Senate that year, and was successful.  He was defeated in the general election by incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]].  After the election he ran successfully again for the Senate in 1968.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lyndon Johnson was successful in part because of continued public sympathy over the [[John F. Kennedy assassination]], the use of [[negative advertising]] such as the notorious &amp;quot;daisy&amp;quot; TV ad which raised fears of [[nuclear war]] if Goldwater were elected, and negative media coverage of some of the conservative groups supporting Goldwater, such as the [[John Birch Society]].  Johnson ironically ran as a &amp;quot;peace candidate&amp;quot; but shortly after the election drastically escalated U.S. involvement in the [[Vietnam War]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 Goldwater campaign helped usher in the modern conservative movement in the United States.  The political careers of both [[Phyllis Schlafly]] and [[Ronald Reagan]] got a big boost during the campaign.  Schlafly wrote a book, ''[[A Choice, Not An Echo]]'' during the campaign which was widely distributed and launched her career as a conservative political activist.  ''A Choice, Not An Echo'' detailed the machinations of the [[moderate]] to [[liberal]] East Coast wing of the Republican Party to hand-pick Presidential candidates (Nixon, [[Wendell Willkie]], [[Dwight Eisenhower]], etc.) and called for conservatives in the party to organize to counter this wing of the party and their &amp;quot;kingmaker&amp;quot; approach to nominating candidates.  The book was a rallying call for conservatives in the party and helped Goldwater win the nomination.  Reagan gave a speech as part of a &amp;quot;TV for Goldwater-Miller&amp;quot; television ad campaign which made him an up and coming star among conservatives, eventually leading to his own series of Presidential campaigns in 1968, 1976. and 1980, the last of which successfully landed him in the [[White House]].  The 1964 Goldwater campaign was also followed by the rise of a growing conservative campus movement during the 1960s led by [[Young Americans for Freedom]], the rise of a small [[libertarian]] movement which also supported Goldwater but would later split with conservatism over the [[draft]] and [[drug]] policy, and modern conservative movement approaches such as [[direct mail]] organizing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 1964 Goldwater campaign also marked the first time since before the [[Civil War]] that the states of the Deep South, angered by the liberal Johnson's support for civil rights, broke from the [[Democratic Party]] and gave their electoral votes to the Republican nominee. The South has had a long tradition of [[conservative Democrat]]s and nearly always voted for the Democratic nominee in Presidential elections before 1964. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Taylor Branch, Pillar of Fire - See pages 356-357 for Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Libertarian Social Views==&lt;br /&gt;
Disconcerted by the increased influence of the Religious Right upon the Republican Party during the Reagan administration, Goldwater became increasingly vocal advocate of libertarian social policy.  After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor [[Evan Mecham]] as &amp;quot;hardheaded&amp;quot; and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican party had been taken over by a &amp;quot;bunch of kooks&amp;quot;. In a 1994 interview with the ''[[Washington Post]]'' the retired senator said, {{cquote|When you say &amp;quot;radical right&amp;quot; today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like [[Pat Robertson]] and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[Moral Majority]] founder [[Jerry Falwell]]'s opposition to the nomination of [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, &amp;quot;Every good Christian should be concerned&amp;quot;, Goldwater retorted: &amp;quot;Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ed Magnuson, [[Time Magazine]], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954833-2,00.html ''The Brethren's First Sister''], July 20, 1981. Retrieved 1/1/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Goldwater also had harsh words for his one-time political protege, President Reagan, particularly after the [[Iran-Contra Affair]] became public in 1986. Journalist [[Robert MacNeil]], a friend of Goldwater's from the 1964 Presidential campaign, recalled interviewing him in his office shortly afterward. &amp;quot;He was sitting in his office with his hands on his cane...and he said to me, 'Well, aren't you going to ask me about the [[Iran]] arms sales?' It had just been announced that the Reagan administration had sold arms to Iran. And I said, 'Well, if I asked you, what would you say?' He said, 'I'd say it's the god-damned stupidest foreign policy blunder this country's ever made!'&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-374469737793037291&amp;amp;q=Robert+MacNeil &amp;quot;Archive of American Television Interview with Robert MacNeil Part 5 of 14&amp;quot; (video)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though aside from the Iran-Contra scandal, Goldwater thought nonetheless that Reagan was a good president.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLATQAU-Hw0&amp;amp;feature=related YouTube - Charlie Rose - Goldwater tribute/&amp;lt;!-- Bot generated title --&amp;gt;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, Goldwater angered many [[social conservatives]], criticizing the military's ban on [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]: &amp;quot;Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of [[Julius Caesar]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Ban On Gays Is Senseless Attempt To Stall The Inevitable&amp;quot;, ''Los Angeles Times'', ''Washington Post''. Online at [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He also said, &amp;quot;You don't have to ''be'' straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to ''shoot'' straight.&amp;quot; A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, &amp;quot;Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[The Betrayal of America]] by [[Vincent Bugliosi]], 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996 he told [[Bob Dole]], whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: &amp;quot;We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?&amp;quot; In that same year, with Senator [[Dennis DeConcini]], Goldwater endorsed an [[Arizona]] initiative to legalize [[medical marijuana]] against the will of social conservatives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.reason.com/news/show/30148.html Prescription: Drugs] Reason Magazine&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservative links]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Goldwater, Barry}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politicians]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Jewish Conservatives]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Arizona Senators]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=511157</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=511157"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T18:47:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: It's a number of things.  If you don't believe what the Bible clearly says, then your faith is likely to be weakened, especially if an atheist (for example) challenges you on it.  The accounts of people losing their faith because they accept the anti-biblical atheist origins myth that is evolution are legion.  Further, Christians are supposed to witness to others.  That witness is badly weakened if they show that they don't believe the very book they profess to believe.  Another one is what you touch on.  If you believe that God used evolution to create, you are more likely to believe that God merely started the whole process off and then let it be, rather than being intimately involved in a personal way.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::So they can be Christians, but they can't very effective Christians; do I have that right?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Thanks for taking the time for me, by the way.  I suspect that explaining religion to me is a challenge along the lines of explaining color to a blind man.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: It depends on what they are doing.  They can be effective in many ways, but if they face someone for whom &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; (i.e. ideas such as evolution) is an issue (and that's not always obvious), ''then'' they are likely to be much less effective.  And that it potentially undermines their own faith.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 2 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yet you offered no alternative definition.  Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked.  So you haven't answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;, other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''&amp;quot;:  Is it?  I don't believe so.  You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.  I don't believe that.  So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!  See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...&amp;quot;free will&amp;quot; ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''&amp;quot;:  Yet you fail to explain how.  And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''&amp;quot;:  Neither do I.  I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection is not random, but the mutations&amp;amp;mdash;the claimed source of the novel features&amp;amp;mdash;that it supposedly acts on are.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;sick&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;.  I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad.  What defines them as being bad?  Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''&amp;quot;:  No, that's an atheistic fallacy.  The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written.  This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted.  Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.''&amp;quot;:  It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''.  Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand.  That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion.  Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''&amp;quot;:  So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''&amp;quot;:  Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument.  Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''.  It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You're right! Why is that [&amp;quot;meaning&amp;quot; being relative] a problem?''&amp;quot;:  I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''.  Meaning is based on the origin of something.  What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes?  Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)?  I would argue that it's because of the Fall.  Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''.  With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;.''&amp;quot;:  So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''&amp;quot;:  No, I did not.  I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''&amp;quot;:  Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''&amp;quot;:  But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am &amp;quot;''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''&amp;quot; This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''&amp;quot; You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''&amp;quot;Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined.&amp;quot;'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, &amp;quot;no killing&amp;quot; becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how &amp;quot;morals&amp;quot; have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''&amp;quot; That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''&amp;quot; As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own &amp;quot;meaning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This is why we can look over &amp;quot;holes&amp;quot; in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not &amp;quot;blind faith,&amp;quot; it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be &amp;quot;God did it.&amp;quot; The rest of the philosophy follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Whilst I thought that you didn't adequately address my previous reply, I didn't think your response was &amp;quot;flippant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true.''&amp;quot;:  No I won't (and if I inadvertently do, I apologise).  I will be arguing ''that'' God exists and the Bible is true (literally true where that's what the author intended), but I won't be arguing ''from that premise''.  You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on premises such as man inventing God, and there's no way that you should expect me to accept an argument ''based on'' a premise that I reject.&lt;br /&gt;
::: I've added some more to [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]]:  You are arguing in the form ''because A, therefore B'', not, as you claim, ''if A, therefore B, and we have B, therefore A is true''.  Many of my arguments are pointing out that the claim should be ''if A '''or''' C, therefore B'', and therefore it is a fallacy to conclude ''and we have B, therefore A is true''.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either.''&amp;quot;:  Like what?  I'm arguing ''for'' things that you don't believe, but as far as I know I'm not argument ''from a presumption'' that you don't believe.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism...''&amp;quot;:  Thank you.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes.''&amp;quot;:  Why do you assert that when we specifically claim that our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations.''&amp;quot;:  Nice story.  Any basis for it?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed.''&amp;quot;:  I accept of course that we don't enjoy being killed, but how does this follow logically ''from Darwinism''?  Darwinism teaches that without death we would not be here, because there would be no evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws...''&amp;quot;:  Because, according to the Bible, what you call the &amp;quot;Christian God&amp;quot; is actually the Creator of ''all'' people.  ''All'' people are descended from Adam and Eve (and Noah and his family), who knew the Creator.  And because God created man with a conscience.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.''&amp;quot;:  And if the Bible is true, then the animals were also created by God, and were created to be peaceful and friendly.  So this bit of evidence fits the creationary view at least as well, and I would say better, given, as I said above, evolution actually requires struggle and death.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective.''&amp;quot;:  And that's the problem.  You ''start with'' naturalism, then interpret the evidence in that light.  The real question (one of them anyway), is ''does that really follow from naturalism?''.  My arguments above about evolution requiring death would suggest otherwise.  The other crucial question is, ''Does naturalism explain this evidence '''better''' than the creationary view?''.  Again, I've pointed out above that the creationary view also explains this evidence, and in my opinion explains it better.  And remember, this was the evidence that ''you'' chose to present; i.e. the evidence that should be more favourable to ''your'' view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that.''&amp;quot;: Can I?  You are basically using evidence that people imagined gods as an argument to show that people will invent gods simply to explain things.  But I would argue that people, influence by Satan, invented ''false'' gods as alternatives to the ''true'' God.  People make ''fake'' $100 notes and not $53 notes because there are ''real'' $100 notes, but no real $53 notes.  The very existence of fakes gods suggests a ''real'' God.  If there was no real God, where did the idea of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; come from?  I guess that you could invent a semi-plausible story to explain that, but that's all it would be&amp;amp;mdash;a made-up story designed to prop up the naturalistic view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.''&amp;quot;:  Oh really?  Try reading that sentence again in the light of my previous comment.  I see those &amp;quot;old, ancient gods&amp;quot; as forgeries of the real God.  Is that how you see all gods?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us.''&amp;quot;:  That's not an argument for free will being inherent in atheism, but an argument for free will being incompatible with God.  Free will is not compatible with atheism because the atheistic view that matter is all there is means that our &amp;quot;decisions&amp;quot; are not really our decisions but merely the unavoidable results of the chemical reactions occurring in your brain.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that?''&amp;quot;:  We probably can't.  That's one thing that comes down to presupposition.  But an atheist that argues that we have free will is being inconsistent.  He can't actually conclude that we have free will, because that thought is ''determined'' for him by those chemical reactions.  To paraphrase a comment you make a bit later, it (the atheistic view) doesn't yield any useful results.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do?''&amp;quot;:  How does God ''knowing what you decide'' mean that you didn't freely make that choice?  Perhaps it would help if I point out that God knows not because he can somehow determine the future, but because He is ''outside of time''.  Thus, He ''already knows'' what you ''did'' decide.  That doesn't prevent you making the decision of your own free will.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing...''&amp;quot;: Nevertheless, many people do, and they are not &amp;quot;wind-up toys&amp;quot; as a result.  Agreed?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results.''&amp;quot;:  Good answer.  However, people believing that God is the Creator, that they were &amp;quot;thinking God's thoughts after him&amp;quot;, and so on, ''has'' yielded many useful results.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].  So according to your own argument, scientists ''should'' consider that God created.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause.''&amp;quot;:  That's begging the question, a logical fallacy.  The universe, life, etc. was once believed to have a supernatural cause.  That some people now ''believe'' otherwise does not mean that it's so.  The ''cause'' of those things has ''not'' been &amp;quot;shown&amp;quot; to be natural.  Rather, people choose to ''believe'' that the cause is natural, despite the absurdity of some of those explanations.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/]&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine?&amp;quot;:  Actually, much of that was done by ''creationists'', such as Pasteur.  What was that about useful results?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature.''&amp;quot;:  Begging the question again.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes...''&amp;quot;:  Gaping chasms, actually.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You say &amp;quot;''I'm arguing for things that you don't believe, but ... I'm not argument from a presumption that you don't believe.''&amp;quot; but then you go on to make many arguments from a premise which ''I'' don't accept. If you won't even consider my arguments because you won't consider their naturalistic &amp;quot;presumptions&amp;quot; then why do you expect me to take seriously a claim such as the following: &amp;quot;''Our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?''&amp;quot; By your own reasoning, why should I even consider this statement at all since you are backing it up with a premise I don't believe? If you are going to throw out everything I say because of a statement's &amp;quot;naturalism,&amp;quot; then there is nothing I can say to convince you of anything, since of course I will be coming from a naturalistic perspective. But then why do you also expect me to listen to any statement of yours invoking God? And you're saying ''you'' start without presumptions? Please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You explain away evolutionary theories on the origins of morality by stating that &amp;quot;''God created man with a conscience.''&amp;quot; First of all, I don't agree with this premise, but I will overlook this to make my argument. Now, if God imbued all humans with consciences, it would perfectly explain why all religions have virtually the same set of moral codes. But you ''also'' make the ethnocentric claim that people from other religions, ''&amp;quot;influence[d] by Satan, invented false gods as alternatives to the true God [i.e., the Christian God].&amp;quot;'' So if Satan created the false gods, did he also create the moral codes these gods dictate?  If the morals were in fact from God and the rest of the religion from Satan, it would appear that Satan doesn't care about overthrowing God's morals but instead cares about duping people into believing in false mythology. Basically you are saying that an aspect of a religion is necessarily from God if that aspect agrees with Christianity, but the rest of that religion ''must'' be from Satan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, if all humans have this inherent sense of morality from God, then no effort should be made to dispel atheism since it won't have a moral effect on anyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next you state that the very reason other people create false Gods is because there must be a true one in the first place. I do not agree with the presumption of this argument. However, your 'hundred dollar bill' example makes no sense because everyone has seen an authentic hundred dollar bill. It is debatable whether or not anyone has seen an authentic 'true God.' And what exactly would be the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of a 53 dollar bill?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These points aside, even if is true that there is a true God on which all other gods are based upon, you are admitting that people create false gods. On what basis, then, do you know that ''your particular God'' is in fact the true one and not a false reinterpretation of the true one? Certainly all religions have sacred texts claiming that their particular philosophy is the singular truth. If people from other religions and cultures had no way of knowing their God was false, how then would you? With this logic there may be a God but His name may not be Jesus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;The very existence of fakes gods suggests a real God.&amp;quot;'' There are very many different Santa Clauses throughout the world; Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, Father Frost, etc., etc. But the very existence of so many Santas does ''not'' imply that there must be a ''real'' one too! I suppose you might bring up the very real Saint Nicholas, but if you did you would be providing a naturalistic explanation for mythical variation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your statement that I should not be allowed to believe in free will because other atheists do not is on par with a claim that you should believe in evolution because most people who define themselves as Christians actually do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[God] is outside of time. Thus, He already knows what you did decide.'' Because you say so? And you are also trying to tell me that this being who apparently exists outside of time is a &amp;quot;''simple''&amp;quot; being? Besides, I don't even accept the presumption of this argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Gaping chasms, actually.'' Do you honestly believe that people with much more scientific background then either of us--experts in biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, etc--would waste the better part of a century and a half over a theory if it had such &amp;quot;gaping chasms?&amp;quot; How do you account for all of the scientifically-grounded experts currently involved in evolutionary theory if it in fact has no basis in reality?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interestingly Pastuer had the following to say: ''&amp;quot;Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages ('''an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years'''), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.''&amp;quot; Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: ''The man and his theories''. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for me not adequately responding, why have you not responded to the early example I provided of humans apparently evolving an immunity to HIV/AIDs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, none of my ''&amp;quot;made-up stor[ies] designed to prop up the naturalistic view&amp;quot;'' will convince you of anything. It seems that you think it is sound to reject an argument if you just don't agree with what it implies. We're not going to get anywhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...you go on to make many arguments from a premise which ''I'' don't accept.''&amp;quot;:  I don't believe that I did, and I already apologised if I inadvertently do so.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...why do you expect me to take seriously a claim such as the following: &amp;quot;Our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?&amp;quot; By your own reasoning, why should I even consider this statement at all since you are backing it up with a premise I don't believe?''&amp;quot;:  What premise is that?  Note that I actually said (emphasis added): &amp;quot;''we specifically claim'' that our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us&amp;quot;.  Do you reject that we claim that?  If so, then okay, you have a point, and we might need to explore that.  If you accept ''that we claim that'', then my argument was valid.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If you are going to throw out everything I say because of a statement's &amp;quot;naturalism,&amp;quot; then there is nothing I can say to convince you of anything, since of course I will be coming from a naturalistic perspective.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that there will be some things we agree on, such as hard evidence, the usefulness of fulfilled prediction, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...why do you also expect me to listen to any statement of yours invoking God?''&amp;quot;:  I don't, but I avoid &amp;quot;invoking&amp;quot; God.  I will talk ''about'' God, such as correcting your misunderstandings on what God is supposed to be like, but I will avoid ''invoking'' God.  I didn't invoke God in that previous sentence; I invoked the Christian ''claim about God''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...You explain away evolutionary theories on the origins of morality by stating that &amp;quot;God created man with a conscience.&amp;quot; First of all, I don't agree with this premise''&amp;quot;:  I will plead guilty to sometimes abbreviating my comments.  When I said that &amp;quot;God created man with a conscience&amp;quot;, I was actually saying, &amp;quot;you asked why various cultures agree on a certain points; here's my answer: according to my view, God created man with a conscience&amp;quot;.  I don't expect you to accept that God did that (as you don't believe in God), but I expect you to accept that I do have an explanatory answer to your question.  Your implied point that my view ''can't explain this fact'' is wrong, because I ''do have an explanation''.  You won't accept that my explanation is correct, but you should accept that my view ''can explain it'', contrary to your implication.  That's all I was expecting.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''So if Satan created the false gods, did he also create the moral codes these gods dictate?''&amp;quot;:  A forger is going to try and get as much as possible of the forgery the same as the real thing.  So we would not expect Satan to change ''all'' the moral codes.  Rather, he would likely ''keep'' most of them, just changing enough to derail people from the true path.  I hope that answer is clear.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it would appear that Satan doesn't care about overthrowing God's morals but instead cares about duping people into believing in false mythology.''&amp;quot;:  Correct.  His goal is to turn people away from God, not with overthrowing God's morals.  The latter is more of a means to an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Basically you are saying that an aspect of a religion is necessarily from God if that aspect agrees with Christianity, but the rest of that religion must be from Satan.''&amp;quot;:  Pretty much right.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Moreover, if all humans have this inherent sense of morality from God, then no effort should be made to dispel atheism since it won't have a moral effect on anyone.''&amp;quot;:  I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but although all humans have a conscience (what I assume you are referring to), that can be suppressed, such as by atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Next you state that the very reason other people create false Gods is because there must be a true one in the first place. I do not agree with the presumption of this argument.''&amp;quot;:  Which presumption exactly?  And that is not what I said anyway.  I didn't say that there ''must'' be a true one; I said that it ''suggests'' that there is a true one.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''However, your 'hundred dollar bill' example makes no sense because everyone has seen an authentic hundred dollar bill. It is debatable whether or not anyone has seen an authentic 'true God.'''&amp;quot;:  Nobody has &amp;quot;seen&amp;quot; electricity, but they've seen the effects of it.  And (I would argue) we've see the effects of God.  But that's perhaps a bit of a sidetrack.  You do perhaps have a point, but my mistake was in not wording it correctly.  My point was more to do with where the ''idea'' of a god came from.  Even if people haven't seen a real $100 note, they believe that they exist.  So a fake might trick them.  Conversely, a forger is not even going to ''think'' of making a fake $53 note.  Similarly, whether people have actually seen God or not, if they believe that God exists, they can potentially be fooled by fake ones.  But if there was no real God, where did the idea of gods come from in the first place?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''And what exactly would be the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of a 53 dollar bill?''&amp;quot;:  That's sort of my point.  Just suppose that there was no God.  What exactly would the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of ''no god'' be?  It's not likely to be a god.  So where ''did'' the idea of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; come from?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''... do you know that ''your particular God'' is in fact the true one and not a false reinterpretation of the true one?''&amp;quot;:  By examining the claims about God and seeing if they are internally consistent, consistent with observations, and so on.  The Bible records a ''lot'' of information about God and the world with which He interacted.  That gives us a lot of points to check.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If people from other religions and cultures had no way of knowing their God was false...''&amp;quot;:  What makes you think they had no way of knowing?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I suppose you might bring up the very real Saint Nicholas...''&amp;quot;:  Correct.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...you would be providing a naturalistic explanation for mythical variation''&amp;quot;:  That's going to be true by definition.  A fake copy of a real one will have false elements, i.e. &amp;quot;mythical variation&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Your statement that I should not be allowed to believe in free will...''&amp;quot;:  I did not say that you are not ''allowed'' to believe in it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...because other atheists do not is on par with a claim that you should believe in evolution because most people who define themselves as Christians actually do.''&amp;quot;:  My claim is that free will is inconsistent with the principles of atheism.  I ''support'' that claim by quoting atheists who agree with the claim.  That is a perfectly legitimate argument to make.  On the other hand, Christianity is defined not by the beliefs of its followers, but by the teaching in the Bible.  Evolution is inconsistent with the Bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;[God] is outside of time. Thus, He already knows what you did decide.&amp;quot; Because you say so?''&amp;quot;: No, because that's what the Bible teaches.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I don't even accept the presumption of this argument.''&amp;quot;: I was explaining the biblical teaching, which you didn't understand, hence your quandary about free will.  I take it that you don't believe that God is outside of time.  That seems an odd claim given that you don't believe He even exists.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Do you honestly believe that people with much more scientific background then either of us--experts in biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, etc--would waste the better part of a century and a half over a theory if it had such &amp;quot;gaping chasms?&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yep.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''How do you account for all of the scientifically-grounded experts currently involved in evolutionary theory if it in fact has no basis in reality?''&amp;quot;:  Many reasons, but at root because this issue&amp;amp;mdash;which is more of a ''historical'' issue than a ''scientific'' one&amp;amp;mdash;is really a ''spiritual'' issue.  Believing evolution gives them an excuse to reject God.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Interestingly Pastuer had the following to say: [quote snipped for brevity]...''&amp;quot;:  See [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/louis-pasteurs-views here].  The bit you emphasised was added by an unknown author later.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''As for me not adequately responding, why have you not responded to the early example I provided of humans apparently evolving an immunity to HIV/AIDs''&amp;quot;:  I did respond to the point that that was an example of.  Having responded to the point, there's no need to respond to individual examples.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''It seems that you think it is sound to reject an argument if you just don't agree with what it implies.''&amp;quot;:  And yet here I am giving ''reasoned'' answers, not simply rejection.&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Do you reject that we claim that?&amp;quot;'' Of course I don't. Does the fact that you claim it give in any merit? No. I specifically claim my assertions as well. You don't reject that I ''claim'' them. Ridiculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;I invoked the Christian claim about God.&amp;quot;'' Whilst I invoke the naturalistic explanation for whatever ''you'' present.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;You won't accept that my explanation is correct, but you should accept that my view can explain it.&amp;quot;'' You're right. The same should be said for my view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;I didn't say that there must be a true [God]; I said that it suggests that there is a true one.&amp;quot;'' Just as the many claims of Bigfoot around the world suggest there must be a real Bigfoot. Basically, this line of logic allows you to &amp;quot;imply&amp;quot; the existence of whatever you can imagine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;But if there was no real God, where did the idea of gods come from in the first place?&amp;quot;'' You are right that I have a &amp;quot;''semi-plausible story to explain that'',&amp;quot; but should I even bother typing it since you will reject it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Believing evolution gives them an excuse to reject God.&amp;quot;'' This statement is disgusting. Do you honestly believe that the theory, and the hundreds of years of research associated with it, exists solely to inflate the egos of atheists? What do you make of the 30-40 percent of biologists who are theistic, who are somehow able to reconcile the hard physical evidence with their personal faiths? Darwin himself was Anglican as he wrote the ''Origin of Species''. He became agnostic later. Do you think he ''wanted'' to lose his faith? Do you think he ''set out'' to fool everyone? It is grotesque, the level of paranoia it takes to honestly and sincerely believe that an entire branch of science with literally millions upon millions of researchers and individuals exists only to trumpet atheism; It is grotesque, the lack of imagination it requires for a believer to be unable to imagine that perhaps God is behind the very real and very hard evolutionary evidence that scientists uncover. Conservapedia needs to move away from fundamentalist values and toward conservative values. Secular conservatives should not feel downtrodden on this site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:34, 3 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. One last thing: How exactly, does the fact that God &amp;quot;''is outside of time''&amp;quot; actually solve this free will paradox? When God created mankind, He knew full well that Adam was going to ruin everything. We both agree on this. Despite that it was Adam's choice and Adam's alone, ''why'' did God even have to create mankind? To give us a choice which He already knew would end in disaster? Does that mean God is just going through the motions of some script, over which He has no control? &lt;br /&gt;
Thanks. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 14:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can't prove that God did'int send jesus to more than one planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's foolish to think that God would make litery quadrillion apon quadrillions of galaxy each containg possibley millions of star systems just so one planet of people could live.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's illogical and since God can't fail and doing anything illoligical is a failure that proves there life on other planets.(as much as anyone elses random &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; its realy a matter of faith for me)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=510232</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=510232"/>
		<updated>2008-09-03T20:34:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: It's a number of things.  If you don't believe what the Bible clearly says, then your faith is likely to be weakened, especially if an atheist (for example) challenges you on it.  The accounts of people losing their faith because they accept the anti-biblical atheist origins myth that is evolution are legion.  Further, Christians are supposed to witness to others.  That witness is badly weakened if they show that they don't believe the very book they profess to believe.  Another one is what you touch on.  If you believe that God used evolution to create, you are more likely to believe that God merely started the whole process off and then let it be, rather than being intimately involved in a personal way.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::So they can be Christians, but they can't very effective Christians; do I have that right?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Thanks for taking the time for me, by the way.  I suspect that explaining religion to me is a challenge along the lines of explaining color to a blind man.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: It depends on what they are doing.  They can be effective in many ways, but if they face someone for whom &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; (i.e. ideas such as evolution) is an issue (and that's not always obvious), ''then'' they are likely to be much less effective.  And that it potentially undermines their own faith.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:41, 2 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yet you offered no alternative definition.  Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked.  So you haven't answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;, other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''&amp;quot;:  Is it?  I don't believe so.  You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.  I don't believe that.  So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!  See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...&amp;quot;free will&amp;quot; ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''&amp;quot;:  Yet you fail to explain how.  And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''&amp;quot;:  Neither do I.  I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection is not random, but the mutations&amp;amp;mdash;the claimed source of the novel features&amp;amp;mdash;that it supposedly acts on are.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;sick&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;.  I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad.  What defines them as being bad?  Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''&amp;quot;:  No, that's an atheistic fallacy.  The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written.  This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted.  Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.''&amp;quot;:  It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''.  Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand.  That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion.  Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''&amp;quot;:  So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''&amp;quot;:  Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument.  Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''.  It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You're right! Why is that [&amp;quot;meaning&amp;quot; being relative] a problem?''&amp;quot;:  I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''.  Meaning is based on the origin of something.  What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes?  Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)?  I would argue that it's because of the Fall.  Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''.  With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;.''&amp;quot;:  So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''&amp;quot;:  No, I did not.  I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''&amp;quot;:  Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''&amp;quot;:  But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am &amp;quot;''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''&amp;quot; This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''&amp;quot; You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''&amp;quot;Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined.&amp;quot;'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, &amp;quot;no killing&amp;quot; becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how &amp;quot;morals&amp;quot; have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''&amp;quot; That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''&amp;quot; As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own &amp;quot;meaning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This is why we can look over &amp;quot;holes&amp;quot; in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not &amp;quot;blind faith,&amp;quot; it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be &amp;quot;God did it.&amp;quot; The rest of the philosophy follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Whilst I thought that you didn't adequately address my previous reply, I didn't think your response was &amp;quot;flippant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true.''&amp;quot;:  No I won't (and if I inadvertently do, I apologise).  I will be arguing ''that'' God exists and the Bible is true (literally true where that's what the author intended), but I won't be arguing ''from that premise''.  You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on premises such as man inventing God, and there's no way that you should expect me to accept an argument ''based on'' a premise that I reject.&lt;br /&gt;
::: I've added some more to [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]]:  You are arguing in the form ''because A, therefore B'', not, as you claim, ''if A, therefore B, and we have B, therefore A is true''.  Many of my arguments are pointing out that the claim should be ''if A '''or''' C, therefore B'', and therefore it is a fallacy to conclude ''and we have B, therefore A is true''.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either.''&amp;quot;:  Like what?  I'm arguing ''for'' things that you don't believe, but as far as I know I'm not argument ''from a presumption'' that you don't believe.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism...''&amp;quot;:  Thank you.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes.''&amp;quot;:  Why do you assert that when we specifically claim that our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations.''&amp;quot;:  Nice story.  Any basis for it?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed.''&amp;quot;:  I accept of course that we don't enjoy being killed, but how does this follow logically ''from Darwinism''?  Darwinism teaches that without death we would not be here, because there would be no evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws...''&amp;quot;:  Because, according to the Bible, what you call the &amp;quot;Christian God&amp;quot; is actually the Creator of ''all'' people.  ''All'' people are descended from Adam and Eve (and Noah and his family), who knew the Creator.  And because God created man with a conscience.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.''&amp;quot;:  And if the Bible is true, then the animals were also created by God, and were created to be peaceful and friendly.  So this bit of evidence fits the creationary view at least as well, and I would say better, given, as I said above, evolution actually requires struggle and death.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective.''&amp;quot;:  And that's the problem.  You ''start with'' naturalism, then interpret the evidence in that light.  The real question (one of them anyway), is ''does that really follow from naturalism?''.  My arguments above about evolution requiring death would suggest otherwise.  The other crucial question is, ''Does naturalism explain this evidence '''better''' than the creationary view?''.  Again, I've pointed out above that the creationary view also explains this evidence, and in my opinion explains it better.  And remember, this was the evidence that ''you'' chose to present; i.e. the evidence that should be more favourable to ''your'' view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that.''&amp;quot;: Can I?  You are basically using evidence that people imagined gods as an argument to show that people will invent gods simply to explain things.  But I would argue that people, influence by Satan, invented ''false'' gods as alternatives to the ''true'' God.  People make ''fake'' $100 notes and not $53 notes because there are ''real'' $100 notes, but no real $53 notes.  The very existence of fakes gods suggests a ''real'' God.  If there was no real God, where did the idea of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; come from?  I guess that you could invent a semi-plausible story to explain that, but that's all it would be&amp;amp;mdash;a made-up story designed to prop up the naturalistic view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.''&amp;quot;:  Oh really?  Try reading that sentence again in the light of my previous comment.  I see those &amp;quot;old, ancient gods&amp;quot; as forgeries of the real God.  Is that how you see all gods?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us.''&amp;quot;:  That's not an argument for free will being inherent in atheism, but an argument for free will being incompatible with God.  Free will is not compatible with atheism because the atheistic view that matter is all there is means that our &amp;quot;decisions&amp;quot; are not really our decisions but merely the unavoidable results of the chemical reactions occurring in your brain.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that?''&amp;quot;:  We probably can't.  That's one thing that comes down to presupposition.  But an atheist that argues that we have free will is being inconsistent.  He can't actually conclude that we have free will, because that thought is ''determined'' for him by those chemical reactions.  To paraphrase a comment you make a bit later, it (the atheistic view) doesn't yield any useful results.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do?''&amp;quot;:  How does God ''knowing what you decide'' mean that you didn't freely make that choice?  Perhaps it would help if I point out that God knows not because he can somehow determine the future, but because He is ''outside of time''.  Thus, He ''already knows'' what you ''did'' decide.  That doesn't prevent you making the decision of your own free will.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing...''&amp;quot;: Nevertheless, many people do, and they are not &amp;quot;wind-up toys&amp;quot; as a result.  Agreed?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results.''&amp;quot;:  Good answer.  However, people believing that God is the Creator, that they were &amp;quot;thinking God's thoughts after him&amp;quot;, and so on, ''has'' yielded many useful results.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].  So according to your own argument, scientists ''should'' consider that God created.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause.''&amp;quot;:  That's begging the question, a logical fallacy.  The universe, life, etc. was once believed to have a supernatural cause.  That some people now ''believe'' otherwise does not mean that it's so.  The ''cause'' of those things has ''not'' been &amp;quot;shown&amp;quot; to be natural.  Rather, people choose to ''believe'' that the cause is natural, despite the absurdity of some of those explanations.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/]&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine?&amp;quot;:  Actually, much of that was done by ''creationists'', such as Pasteur.  What was that about useful results?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature.''&amp;quot;:  Begging the question again.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes...''&amp;quot;:  Gaping chasms, actually.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You say &amp;quot;''I'm arguing for things that you don't believe, but ... I'm not argument from a presumption that you don't believe.''&amp;quot; but then you go on to make many arguments from a premise which ''I'' don't accept. If you won't even consider my arguments because you won't consider their naturalistic &amp;quot;presumptions&amp;quot; then why do you expect me to take seriously a claim such as the following: &amp;quot;''Our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?''&amp;quot; By your own reasoning, why should I even consider this statement at all since you are backing it up with a premise I don't believe? If you are going to throw out everything I say because of a statement's &amp;quot;naturalism,&amp;quot; then there is nothing I can say to convince you of anything, since of course I will be coming from a naturalistic perspective. But then why do you also expect me to listen to any statement of yours invoking God? And you're saying ''you'' start without presumptions? Please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You explain away evolutionary theories on the origins of morality by stating that &amp;quot;''God created man with a conscience.''&amp;quot; First of all, I don't agree with this premise, but I will overlook this to make my argument. Now, if God imbued all humans with consciences, it would perfectly explain why all religions have virtually the same set of moral codes. But you ''also'' make the ethnocentric claim that people from other religions, ''&amp;quot;influence[d] by Satan, invented false gods as alternatives to the true God [i.e., the Christian God].&amp;quot;'' So if Satan created the false gods, did he also create the moral codes these gods dictate?  If the morals were in fact from God and the rest of the religion from Satan, it would appear that Satan doesn't care about overthrowing God's morals but instead cares about duping people into believing in false mythology. Basically you are saying that an aspect of a religion is necessarily from God if that aspect agrees with Christianity, but the rest of that religion ''must'' be from Satan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, if all humans have this inherent sense of morality from God, then no effort should be made to dispel atheism since it won't have a moral effect on anyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next you state that the very reason other people create false Gods is because there must be a true one in the first place. I do not agree with the presumption of this argument. However, your 'hundred dollar bill' example makes no sense because everyone has seen an authentic hundred dollar bill. It is debatable whether or not anyone has seen an authentic 'true God.' And what exactly would be the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of a 53 dollar bill?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These points aside, even if is true that there is a true God on which all other gods are based upon, you are admitting that people create false gods. On what basis, then, do you know that ''your particular God'' is in fact the true one and not a false reinterpretation of the true one? Certainly all religions have sacred texts claiming that their particular philosophy is the singular truth. If people from other religions and cultures had no way of knowing their God was false, how then would you? With this logic there may be a God but His name may not be Jesus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;The very existence of fakes gods suggests a real God.&amp;quot;'' There are very many different Santa Clauses throughout the world; Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, Father Frost, etc., etc. But the very existence of so many Santas does ''not'' imply that there must be a ''real'' one too! I suppose you might bring up the very real Saint Nicholas, but if you did you would be providing a naturalistic explanation for mythical variation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your statement that I should not be allowed to believe in free will because other atheists do not is on par with a claim that you should believe in evolution because most people who define themselves as Christians actually do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[God] is outside of time. Thus, He already knows what you did decide.'' Because you say so? And you are also trying to tell me that this being who apparently exists outside of time is a &amp;quot;''simple''&amp;quot; being? Besides, I don't even accept the presumption of this argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Gaping chasms, actually.'' Do you honestly believe that people with much more scientific background then either of us--experts in biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, etc--would waste the better part of a century and a half over a theory if it had such &amp;quot;gaping chasms?&amp;quot; How do you account for all of the scientifically-grounded experts currently involved in evolutionary theory if it in fact has no basis in reality?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interestingly Pastuer had the following to say: ''&amp;quot;Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages ('''an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years'''), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.''&amp;quot; Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: ''The man and his theories''. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for me not adequately responding, why have you not responded to the early example I provided of humans apparently evolving an immunity to HIV/AIDs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, none of my ''&amp;quot;made-up stor[ies] designed to prop up the naturalistic view&amp;quot;'' will convince you of anything. It seems that you think it is sound to reject an argument if you just don't agree with what it implies. We're not going to get anywhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...you go on to make many arguments from a premise which ''I'' don't accept.''&amp;quot;:  I don't believe that I did, and I already apologised if I inadvertently do so.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...why do you expect me to take seriously a claim such as the following: &amp;quot;Our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?&amp;quot; By your own reasoning, why should I even consider this statement at all since you are backing it up with a premise I don't believe?''&amp;quot;:  What premise is that?  Note that I actually said (emphasis added): &amp;quot;''we specifically claim'' that our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us&amp;quot;.  Do you reject that we claim that?  If so, then okay, you have a point, and we might need to explore that.  If you accept ''that we claim that'', then my argument was valid.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If you are going to throw out everything I say because of a statement's &amp;quot;naturalism,&amp;quot; then there is nothing I can say to convince you of anything, since of course I will be coming from a naturalistic perspective.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that there will be some things we agree on, such as hard evidence, the usefulness of fulfilled prediction, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...why do you also expect me to listen to any statement of yours invoking God?''&amp;quot;:  I don't, but I avoid &amp;quot;invoking&amp;quot; God.  I will talk ''about'' God, such as correcting your misunderstandings on what God is supposed to be like, but I will avoid ''invoking'' God.  I didn't invoke God in that previous sentence; I invoked the Christian ''claim about God''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...You explain away evolutionary theories on the origins of morality by stating that &amp;quot;God created man with a conscience.&amp;quot; First of all, I don't agree with this premise''&amp;quot;:  I will plead guilty to sometimes abbreviating my comments.  When I said that &amp;quot;God created man with a conscience&amp;quot;, I was actually saying, &amp;quot;you asked why various cultures agree on a certain points; here's my answer: according to my view, God created man with a conscience&amp;quot;.  I don't expect you to accept that God did that (as you don't believe in God), but I expect you to accept that I do have an explanatory answer to your question.  Your implied point that my view ''can't explain this fact'' is wrong, because I ''do have an explanation''.  You won't accept that my explanation is correct, but you should accept that my view ''can explain it'', contrary to your implication.  That's all I was expecting.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''So if Satan created the false gods, did he also create the moral codes these gods dictate?''&amp;quot;:  A forger is going to try and get as much as possible of the forgery the same as the real thing.  So we would not expect Satan to change ''all'' the moral codes.  Rather, he would likely ''keep'' most of them, just changing enough to derail people from the true path.  I hope that answer is clear.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it would appear that Satan doesn't care about overthrowing God's morals but instead cares about duping people into believing in false mythology.''&amp;quot;:  Correct.  His goal is to turn people away from God, not with overthrowing God's morals.  The latter is more of a means to an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Basically you are saying that an aspect of a religion is necessarily from God if that aspect agrees with Christianity, but the rest of that religion must be from Satan.''&amp;quot;:  Pretty much right.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Moreover, if all humans have this inherent sense of morality from God, then no effort should be made to dispel atheism since it won't have a moral effect on anyone.''&amp;quot;:  I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but although all humans have a conscience (what I assume you are referring to), that can be suppressed, such as by atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Next you state that the very reason other people create false Gods is because there must be a true one in the first place. I do not agree with the presumption of this argument.''&amp;quot;:  Which presumption exactly?  And that is not what I said anyway.  I didn't say that there ''must'' be a true one; I said that it ''suggests'' that there is a true one.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''However, your 'hundred dollar bill' example makes no sense because everyone has seen an authentic hundred dollar bill. It is debatable whether or not anyone has seen an authentic 'true God.'''&amp;quot;:  Nobody has &amp;quot;seen&amp;quot; electricity, but they've seen the effects of it.  And (I would argue) we've see the effects of God.  But that's perhaps a bit of a sidetrack.  You do perhaps have a point, but my mistake was in not wording it correctly.  My point was more to do with where the ''idea'' of a god came from.  Even if people haven't seen a real $100 note, they believe that they exist.  So a fake might trick them.  Conversely, a forger is not even going to ''think'' of making a fake $53 note.  Similarly, whether people have actually seen God or not, if they believe that God exists, they can potentially be fooled by fake ones.  But if there was no real God, where did the idea of gods come from in the first place?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''And what exactly would be the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of a 53 dollar bill?''&amp;quot;:  That's sort of my point.  Just suppose that there was no God.  What exactly would the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of ''no god'' be?  It's not likely to be a god.  So where ''did'' the idea of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; come from?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''... do you know that ''your particular God'' is in fact the true one and not a false reinterpretation of the true one?''&amp;quot;:  By examining the claims about God and seeing if they are internally consistent, consistent with observations, and so on.  The Bible records a ''lot'' of information about God and the world with which He interacted.  That gives us a lot of points to check.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If people from other religions and cultures had no way of knowing their God was false...''&amp;quot;:  What makes you think they had no way of knowing?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I suppose you might bring up the very real Saint Nicholas...''&amp;quot;:  Correct.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...you would be providing a naturalistic explanation for mythical variation''&amp;quot;:  That's going to be true by definition.  A fake copy of a real one will have false elements, i.e. &amp;quot;mythical variation&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Your statement that I should not be allowed to believe in free will...''&amp;quot;:  I did not say that you are not ''allowed'' to believe in it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...because other atheists do not is on par with a claim that you should believe in evolution because most people who define themselves as Christians actually do.''&amp;quot;:  My claim is that free will is inconsistent with the principles of atheism.  I ''support'' that claim by quoting atheists who agree with the claim.  That is a perfectly legitimate argument to make.  On the other hand, Christianity is defined not by the beliefs of its followers, but by the teaching in the Bible.  Evolution is inconsistent with the Bible.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;[God] is outside of time. Thus, He already knows what you did decide.&amp;quot; Because you say so?''&amp;quot;: No, because that's what the Bible teaches.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I don't even accept the presumption of this argument.''&amp;quot;: I was explaining the biblical teaching, which you didn't understand, hence your quandary about free will.  I take it that you don't believe that God is outside of time.  That seems an odd claim given that you don't believe He even exists.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Do you honestly believe that people with much more scientific background then either of us--experts in biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, etc--would waste the better part of a century and a half over a theory if it had such &amp;quot;gaping chasms?&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yep.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''How do you account for all of the scientifically-grounded experts currently involved in evolutionary theory if it in fact has no basis in reality?''&amp;quot;:  Many reasons, but at root because this issue&amp;amp;mdash;which is more of a ''historical'' issue than a ''scientific'' one&amp;amp;mdash;is really a ''spiritual'' issue.  Believing evolution gives them an excuse to reject God.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Interestingly Pastuer had the following to say: [quote snipped for brevity]...''&amp;quot;:  See [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/louis-pasteurs-views here].  The bit you emphasised was added by an unknown author later.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''As for me not adequately responding, why have you not responded to the early example I provided of humans apparently evolving an immunity to HIV/AIDs''&amp;quot;:  I did respond to the point that that was an example of.  Having responded to the point, there's no need to respond to individual examples.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''It seems that you think it is sound to reject an argument if you just don't agree with what it implies.''&amp;quot;:  And yet here I am giving ''reasoned'' answers, not simply rejection.&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Do you reject that we claim that?&amp;quot;'' Of course I don't. Does the fact that you claim it give in any merit? No. I specifically claim my assertions as well. You don't reject that I ''claim'' them. Ridiculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;I invoked the Christian claim about God.&amp;quot;'' Whilst I invoke the naturalistic explanation for whatever ''you'' present.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;You won't accept that my explanation is correct, but you should accept that my view can explain it.&amp;quot;'' You're right. The same should be said for my view.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;I didn't say that there must be a true [God]; I said that it suggests that there is a true one.&amp;quot;'' Just as the many claims of Bigfoot around the world suggest there must be a real Bigfoot. Basically, this line of logic allows you to &amp;quot;imply&amp;quot; the existence of whatever you can imagine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;But if there was no real God, where did the idea of gods come from in the first place?&amp;quot;'' You are right that I have a &amp;quot;''semi-plausible story to explain that'',&amp;quot; but should I even bother typing it since you will reject it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Believing evolution gives them an excuse to reject God.&amp;quot;'' This statement is disgusting. Do you honestly believe that the theory, and the hundreds of years of research associated with it, exists solely to inflate the egos of atheists? What do you make of the 30-40 percent of biologists who are theistic, who are somehow able to reconcile the hard physical evidence with their personal faiths? Darwin himself was Anglican as he wrote the ''Origin of Species''. He became agnostic later. Do you think he ''wanted'' to lose his faith? Do you think he ''set out'' to fool everyone? It is grotesque, the level of paranoia it takes to honestly and sincerely believe that an entire branch of science with literally millions upon millions of researchers and individuals exists only to trumpet atheism; It is grotesque, the lack of imagination it requires for a believer to be unable to imagine that perhaps God is behind the very real and very hard evolutionary evidence that scientists uncover. Conservapedia needs to move away from fundamentalist values and toward conservative values. Secular conservatives should not feel downtrodden on this site.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:34, 3 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can't prove that God did'int send jesus to more than one planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's foolish to think that God would make litery quadrillion apon quadrillions of galaxy each containg possibley millions of star systems just so one planet of people could live.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's illogical and since God can't fail and doing anything illoligical is a failure that proves there life on other planets.(as much as anyone elses random &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; its realy a matter of faith for me)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=509159</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=509159"/>
		<updated>2008-09-02T02:57:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: It's a number of things.  If you don't believe what the Bible clearly says, then your faith is likely to be weakened, especially if an atheist (for example) challenges you on it.  The accounts of people losing their faith because they accept the anti-biblical atheist origins myth that is evolution are legion.  Further, Christians are supposed to witness to others.  That witness is badly weakened if they show that they don't believe the very book they profess to believe.  Another one is what you touch on.  If you believe that God used evolution to create, you are more likely to believe that God merely started the whole process off and then let it be, rather than being intimately involved in a personal way.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::So they can be Christians, but they can't very effective Christians; do I have that right?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Thanks for taking the time for me, by the way.  I suspect that explaining religion to me is a challenge along the lines of explaining color to a blind man.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yet you offered no alternative definition.  Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked.  So you haven't answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;, other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''&amp;quot;:  Is it?  I don't believe so.  You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.  I don't believe that.  So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!  See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...&amp;quot;free will&amp;quot; ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''&amp;quot;:  Yet you fail to explain how.  And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''&amp;quot;:  Neither do I.  I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection is not random, but the mutations&amp;amp;mdash;the claimed source of the novel features&amp;amp;mdash;that it supposedly acts on are.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;sick&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;.  I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad.  What defines them as being bad?  Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''&amp;quot;:  No, that's an atheistic fallacy.  The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written.  This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted.  Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.''&amp;quot;:  It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''.  Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand.  That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion.  Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''&amp;quot;:  So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''&amp;quot;:  Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument.  Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''.  It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You're right! Why is that [&amp;quot;meaning&amp;quot; being relative] a problem?''&amp;quot;:  I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''.  Meaning is based on the origin of something.  What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes?  Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)?  I would argue that it's because of the Fall.  Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''.  With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;.''&amp;quot;:  So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''&amp;quot;:  No, I did not.  I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''&amp;quot;:  Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''&amp;quot;:  But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am &amp;quot;''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''&amp;quot; This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''&amp;quot; You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''&amp;quot;Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined.&amp;quot;'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, &amp;quot;no killing&amp;quot; becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how &amp;quot;morals&amp;quot; have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''&amp;quot; That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''&amp;quot; As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own &amp;quot;meaning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This is why we can look over &amp;quot;holes&amp;quot; in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not &amp;quot;blind faith,&amp;quot; it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be &amp;quot;God did it.&amp;quot; The rest of the philosophy follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Whilst I thought that you didn't adequately address my previous reply, I didn't think your response was &amp;quot;flippant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true.''&amp;quot;:  No I won't (and if I inadvertently do, I apologise).  I will be arguing ''that'' God exists and the Bible is true (literally true where that's what the author intended), but I won't be arguing ''from that premise''.  You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on premises such as man inventing God, and there's no way that you should expect me to accept an argument ''based on'' a premise that I reject.&lt;br /&gt;
::: I've added some more to [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]]:  You are arguing in the form ''because A, therefore B'', not, as you claim, ''if A, therefore B, and we have B, therefore A is true''.  Many of my arguments are pointing out that the claim should be ''if A '''or''' C, therefore B'', and therefore it is a fallacy to conclude ''and we have B, therefore A is true''.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either.''&amp;quot;:  Like what?  I'm arguing ''for'' things that you don't believe, but as far as I know I'm not argument ''from a presumption'' that you don't believe.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism...''&amp;quot;:  Thank you.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes.''&amp;quot;:  Why do you assert that when we specifically claim that our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations.''&amp;quot;:  Nice story.  Any basis for it?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed.''&amp;quot;:  I accept of course that we don't enjoy being killed, but how does this follow logically ''from Darwinism''?  Darwinism teaches that without death we would not be here, because there would be no evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws...''&amp;quot;:  Because, according to the Bible, what you call the &amp;quot;Christian God&amp;quot; is actually the Creator of ''all'' people.  ''All'' people are descended from Adam and Eve (and Noah and his family), who knew the Creator.  And because God created man with a conscience.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.''&amp;quot;:  And if the Bible is true, then the animals were also created by God, and were created to be peaceful and friendly.  So this bit of evidence fits the creationary view at least as well, and I would say better, given, as I said above, evolution actually requires struggle and death.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective.''&amp;quot;:  And that's the problem.  You ''start with'' naturalism, then interpret the evidence in that light.  The real question (one of them anyway), is ''does that really follow from naturalism?''.  My arguments above about evolution requiring death would suggest otherwise.  The other crucial question is, ''Does naturalism explain this evidence '''better''' than the creationary view?''.  Again, I've pointed out above that the creationary view also explains this evidence, and in my opinion explains it better.  And remember, this was the evidence that ''you'' chose to present; i.e. the evidence that should be more favourable to ''your'' view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that.''&amp;quot;: Can I?  You are basically using evidence that people imagined gods as an argument to show that people will invent gods simply to explain things.  But I would argue that people, influence by Satan, invented ''false'' gods as alternatives to the ''true'' God.  People make ''fake'' $100 notes and not $53 notes because there are ''real'' $100 notes, but no real $53 notes.  The very existence of fakes gods suggests a ''real'' God.  If there was no real God, where did the idea of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; come from?  I guess that you could invent a semi-plausible story to explain that, but that's all it would be&amp;amp;mdash;a made-up story designed to prop up the naturalistic view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.''&amp;quot;:  Oh really?  Try reading that sentence again in the light of my previous comment.  I see those &amp;quot;old, ancient gods&amp;quot; as forgeries of the real God.  Is that how you see all gods?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us.''&amp;quot;:  That's not an argument for free will being inherent in atheism, but an argument for free will being incompatible with God.  Free will is not compatible with atheism because the atheistic view that matter is all there is means that our &amp;quot;decisions&amp;quot; are not really our decisions but merely the unavoidable results of the chemical reactions occurring in your brain.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that?''&amp;quot;:  We probably can't.  That's one thing that comes down to presupposition.  But an atheist that argues that we have free will is being inconsistent.  He can't actually conclude that we have free will, because that thought is ''determined'' for him by those chemical reactions.  To paraphrase a comment you make a bit later, it (the atheistic view) doesn't yield any useful results.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do?''&amp;quot;:  How does God ''knowing what you decide'' mean that you didn't freely make that choice?  Perhaps it would help if I point out that God knows not because he can somehow determine the future, but because He is ''outside of time''.  Thus, He ''already knows'' what you ''did'' decide.  That doesn't prevent you making the decision of your own free will.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing...''&amp;quot;: Nevertheless, many people do, and they are not &amp;quot;wind-up toys&amp;quot; as a result.  Agreed?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results.''&amp;quot;:  Good answer.  However, people believing that God is the Creator, that they were &amp;quot;thinking God's thoughts after him&amp;quot;, and so on, ''has'' yielded many useful results.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].  So according to your own argument, scientists ''should'' consider that God created.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause.''&amp;quot;:  That's begging the question, a logical fallacy.  The universe, life, etc. was once believed to have a supernatural cause.  That some people now ''believe'' otherwise does not mean that it's so.  The ''cause'' of those things has ''not'' been &amp;quot;shown&amp;quot; to be natural.  Rather, people choose to ''believe'' that the cause is natural, despite the absurdity of some of those explanations.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/]&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine?&amp;quot;:  Actually, much of that was done by ''creationists'', such as Pasteur.  What was that about useful results?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature.''&amp;quot;:  Begging the question again.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes...''&amp;quot;:  Gaping chasms, actually.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You say &amp;quot;''I'm arguing for things that you don't believe, but ... I'm not argument from a presumption that you don't believe.''&amp;quot; but then you go on to make many arguments from a premise which ''I'' don't accept. If you won't even consider my arguments because you won't consider their naturalistic &amp;quot;presumptions&amp;quot; then why do you expect me to take seriously a claim such as the following: &amp;quot;''Our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?''&amp;quot; By your own reasoning, why should I even consider this statement at all since you are backing it up with a premise I don't believe? If you are going to throw out everything I say because of a statement's &amp;quot;naturalism,&amp;quot; then there is nothing I can say to convince you of anything, since of course I will be coming from a naturalistic perspective. But then why do you also expect me to listen to any statement of yours invoking God? And you're saying ''you'' start without presumptions? Please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You explain away evolutionary theories on the origins of morality by stating that &amp;quot;''God created man with a conscience.''&amp;quot; First of all, I don't agree with this premise, but I will overlook this to make my argument. Now, if God imbued all humans with consciences, it would perfectly explain why all religions have virtually the same set of moral codes. But you ''also'' make the ethnocentric claim that people from other religions, ''&amp;quot;influence[d] by Satan, invented false gods as alternatives to the true God [i.e., the Christian God].&amp;quot;'' So if Satan created the false gods, did he also create the moral codes these gods dictate?  If the morals were in fact from God and the rest of the religion from Satan, it would appear that Satan doesn't care about overthrowing God's morals but instead cares about duping people into believing in false mythology. Basically you are saying that an aspect of a religion is necessarily from God if that aspect agrees with Christianity, but the rest of that religion ''must'' be from Satan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, if all humans have this inherent sense of morality from God, then no effort should be made to dispel atheism since it won't have a moral effect on anyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next you state that the very reason other people create false Gods is because there must be a true one in the first place. I do not agree with the presumption of this argument. However, your 'hundred dollar bill' example makes no sense because everyone has seen an authentic hundred dollar bill. It is debatable whether or not anyone has seen an authentic 'true God.' And what exactly would be the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of a 53 dollar bill?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These points aside, even if is true that there is a true God on which all other gods are based upon, you are admitting that people create false gods. On what basis, then, do you know that ''your particular God'' is in fact the true one and not a false reinterpretation of the true one? Certainly all religions have sacred texts claiming that their particular philosophy is the singular truth. If people from other religions and cultures had no way of knowing their God was false, how then would you? With this logic there may be a God but His name may not be Jesus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;The very existence of fakes gods suggests a real God.&amp;quot;'' There are very many different Santa Clauses throughout the world; Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, Father Frost, etc., etc. But the very existence of so many Santas does ''not'' imply that there must be a ''real'' one too! I suppose you might bring up the very real Saint Nicholas, but if you did you would be providing a naturalistic explanation for mythical variation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your statement that I should not be allowed to believe in free will because other atheists do not is on par with a claim that you should believe in evolution because most people who define themselves as Christians actually do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[God] is outside of time. Thus, He already knows what you did decide.'' Because you say so? And you are also trying to tell me that this being who apparently exists outside of time is a &amp;quot;''simple''&amp;quot; being? Besides, I don't even accept the presumption of this argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Gaping chasms, actually.'' Do you honestly believe that people with much more scientific background then either of us--experts in biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, etc--would waste the better part of a century and a half over a theory if it had such &amp;quot;gaping chasms?&amp;quot; How do you account for all of the scientifically-grounded experts currently involved in evolutionary theory if it in fact has no basis in reality?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interestingly Pastuer had the following to say: ''&amp;quot;Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages ('''an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years'''), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.''&amp;quot; Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: ''The man and his theories''. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for me not adequately responding, why have you not responded to the early example I provided of humans apparently evolving an immunity to HIV/AIDs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, none of my ''&amp;quot;made-up stor[ies] designed to prop up the naturalistic view&amp;quot;'' will convince you of anything. It seems that you think it is sound to reject an argument if you just don't agree with what it implies. We're not going to get anywhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can't prove that God did'int send jesus to more than one planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's foolish to think that God would make litery quadrillion apon quadrillions of galaxy each containg possibley millions of star systems just so one planet of people could live.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's illogical and since God can't fail and doing anything illoligical is a failure that proves there life on other planets.(as much as anyone elses random &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; its realy a matter of faith for me)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=509066</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=509066"/>
		<updated>2008-09-02T01:17:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: It's a number of things.  If you don't believe what the Bible clearly says, then your faith is likely to be weakened, especially if an atheist (for example) challenges you on it.  The accounts of people losing their faith because they accept the anti-biblical atheist origins myth that is evolution are legion.  Further, Christians are supposed to witness to others.  That witness is badly weakened if they show that they don't believe the very book they profess to believe.  Another one is what you touch on.  If you believe that God used evolution to create, you are more likely to believe that God merely started the whole process off and then let it be, rather than being intimately involved in a personal way.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::So they can be Christians, but they can't very effective Christians; do I have that right?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Thanks for taking the time for me, by the way.  I suspect that explaining religion to me is a challenge along the lines of explaining color to a blind man.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:59, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yet you offered no alternative definition.  Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked.  So you haven't answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;, other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''&amp;quot;:  Is it?  I don't believe so.  You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.  I don't believe that.  So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!  See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...&amp;quot;free will&amp;quot; ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''&amp;quot;:  Yet you fail to explain how.  And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''&amp;quot;:  Neither do I.  I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection is not random, but the mutations&amp;amp;mdash;the claimed source of the novel features&amp;amp;mdash;that it supposedly acts on are.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;sick&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;.  I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad.  What defines them as being bad?  Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''&amp;quot;:  No, that's an atheistic fallacy.  The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written.  This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted.  Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.''&amp;quot;:  It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''.  Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand.  That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion.  Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''&amp;quot;:  So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''&amp;quot;:  Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument.  Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''.  It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You're right! Why is that [&amp;quot;meaning&amp;quot; being relative] a problem?''&amp;quot;:  I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''.  Meaning is based on the origin of something.  What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes?  Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)?  I would argue that it's because of the Fall.  Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''.  With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;.''&amp;quot;:  So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''&amp;quot;:  No, I did not.  I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''&amp;quot;:  Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''&amp;quot;:  But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am &amp;quot;''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''&amp;quot; This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''&amp;quot; You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''&amp;quot;Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined.&amp;quot;'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, &amp;quot;no killing&amp;quot; becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how &amp;quot;morals&amp;quot; have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''&amp;quot; That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''&amp;quot; As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own &amp;quot;meaning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This is why we can look over &amp;quot;holes&amp;quot; in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not &amp;quot;blind faith,&amp;quot; it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be &amp;quot;God did it.&amp;quot; The rest of the philosophy follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Whilst I thought that you didn't adequately address my previous reply, I didn't think your response was &amp;quot;flippant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true.''&amp;quot;:  No I won't (and if I inadvertently do, I apologise).  I will be arguing ''that'' God exists and the Bible is true (literally true where that's what the author intended), but I won't be arguing ''from that premise''.  You, on the other hand, are basing your argument on premises such as man inventing God, and there's no way that you should expect me to accept an argument ''based on'' a premise that I reject.&lt;br /&gt;
::: I've added some more to [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]]:  You are arguing in the form ''because A, therefore B'', not, as you claim, ''if A, therefore B, and we have B, therefore A is true''.  Many of my arguments are pointing out that the claim should be ''if A '''or''' C, therefore B'', and therefore it is a fallacy to conclude ''and we have B, therefore A is true''.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either.''&amp;quot;:  Like what?  I'm arguing ''for'' things that you don't believe, but as far as I know I'm not argument ''from a presumption'' that you don't believe.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism...''&amp;quot;:  Thank you.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes.''&amp;quot;:  Why do you assert that when we specifically claim that our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations.''&amp;quot;:  Nice story.  Any basis for it?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed.''&amp;quot;:  I accept of course that we don't enjoy being killed, but how does this follow logically ''from Darwinism''?  Darwinism teaches that without death we would not be here, because there would be no evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws...''&amp;quot;:  Because, according to the Bible, what you call the &amp;quot;Christian God&amp;quot; is actually the Creator of ''all'' people.  ''All'' people are descended from Adam and Eve (and Noah and his family), who knew the Creator.  And because God created man with a conscience.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.''&amp;quot;:  And if the Bible is true, then the animals were also created by God, and were created to be peaceful and friendly.  So this bit of evidence fits the creationary view at least as well, and I would say better, given, as I said above, evolution actually requires struggle and death.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective.''&amp;quot;:  And that's the problem.  You ''start with'' naturalism, then interpret the evidence in that light.  The real question (one of them anyway), is ''does that really follow from naturalism?''.  My arguments above about evolution requiring death would suggest otherwise.  The other crucial question is, ''Does naturalism explain this evidence '''better''' than the creationary view?''.  Again, I've pointed out above that the creationary view also explains this evidence, and in my opinion explains it better.  And remember, this was the evidence that ''you'' chose to present; i.e. the evidence that should be more favourable to ''your'' view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that.''&amp;quot;: Can I?  You are basically using evidence that people imagined gods as an argument to show that people will invent gods simply to explain things.  But I would argue that people, influence by Satan, invented ''false'' gods as alternatives to the ''true'' God.  People make ''fake'' $100 notes and not $53 notes because there are ''real'' $100 notes, but no real $53 notes.  The very existence of fakes gods suggests a ''real'' God.  If there was no real God, where did the idea of &amp;quot;god&amp;quot; come from?  I guess that you could invent a semi-plausible story to explain that, but that's all it would be&amp;amp;mdash;a made-up story designed to prop up the naturalistic view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.''&amp;quot;:  Oh really?  Try reading that sentence again in the light of my previous comment.  I see those &amp;quot;old, ancient gods&amp;quot; as forgeries of the real God.  Is that how you see all gods?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us.''&amp;quot;:  That's not an argument for free will being inherent in atheism, but an argument for free will being incompatible with God.  Free will is not compatible with atheism because the atheistic view that matter is all there is means that our &amp;quot;decisions&amp;quot; are not really our decisions but merely the unavoidable results of the chemical reactions occurring in your brain.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that?''&amp;quot;:  We probably can't.  That's one thing that comes down to presupposition.  But an atheist that argues that we have free will is being inconsistent.  He can't actually conclude that we have free will, because that thought is ''determined'' for him by those chemical reactions.  To paraphrase a comment you make a bit later, it (the atheistic view) doesn't yield any useful results.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do?''&amp;quot;:  How does God ''knowing what you decide'' mean that you didn't freely make that choice?  Perhaps it would help if I point out that God knows not because he can somehow determine the future, but because He is ''outside of time''.  Thus, He ''already knows'' what you ''did'' decide.  That doesn't prevent you making the decision of your own free will.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing...''&amp;quot;: Nevertheless, many people do, and they are not &amp;quot;wind-up toys&amp;quot; as a result.  Agreed?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results.''&amp;quot;:  Good answer.  However, people believing that God is the Creator, that they were &amp;quot;thinking God's thoughts after him&amp;quot;, and so on, ''has'' yielded many useful results.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].  So according to your own argument, scientists ''should'' consider that God created.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause.''&amp;quot;:  That's begging the question, a logical fallacy.  The universe, life, etc. was once believed to have a supernatural cause.  That some people now ''believe'' otherwise does not mean that it's so.  The ''cause'' of those things has ''not'' been &amp;quot;shown&amp;quot; to be natural.  Rather, people choose to ''believe'' that the cause is natural, despite the absurdity of some of those explanations.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/]&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine?&amp;quot;:  Actually, much of that was done by ''creationists'', such as Pasteur.  What was that about useful results?&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature.''&amp;quot;:  Begging the question again.&lt;br /&gt;
::: &amp;quot;''...there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes...''&amp;quot;:  Gaping chasms, actually.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You say &amp;quot;''I'm arguing for things that you don't believe, but ... I'm not argument from a presumption that you don't believe.''&amp;quot; but then you go on to make many arguments from a premise which ''I'' don't accept. If you won't even consider my arguments because you won't consider their naturalistic &amp;quot;presumptions&amp;quot; then why do you expect me to take seriously a claim such as the following: &amp;quot;''Our ideas of good and bad are based on God's revelation to us?''&amp;quot; By your own reasoning, why should I even consider this statement at all since you are backing it up with a premise I don't believe? If you are going to throw out everything I say because of a statement's &amp;quot;naturalism,&amp;quot; then there is nothing I can say to convince you of anything, since of course I will be coming from a naturalistic perspective. But then why do you also expect me to listen to any statement of yours invoking God? And you're saying ''you'' start without presumptions? Please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You explain away evolutionary theories on the origins of morality by stating that &amp;quot;''God created man with a conscience.''&amp;quot; First of all, I don't agree with this premise, but I will overlook this to make my argument. Now, if God imbued all humans with consciences, it would perfectly explain why all religions have virtually the same set of moral codes. But you ''also'' make the ethnocentric claim that people from other religions, ''&amp;quot;influence[d] by Satan, invented false gods as alternatives to the true God [i.e., the Christian God].&amp;quot;'' So if Satan created the false gods, did he also create the moral codes these gods dictate?  If the morals were in fact from God and the rest of the religion from Satan, it would appear that Satan doesn't care about overthrowing God's morals but instead cares about duping people into believing in false mythology. Basically you are saying that an aspect of a religion is necessarily from God if that aspect agrees with Christianity, but the rest of that religion ''must'' be from Satan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, if all humans have this inherent sense of morality from God, then no effort should be made to dispel atheism since it won't have a moral effect on anyone.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next you state that the very reason other people create false Gods is because there must be a true one in the first place. I do not agree with the presumption of this argument. However, your 'hundred dollar bill' example makes no sense because everyone has seen an authentic hundred dollar bill. It is debatable whether or not anyone has seen an authentic 'true God.' And what exactly would be the &amp;quot;false god&amp;quot; equivalent of a 53 dollar bill?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These points aside, even if is true that there is a true God on which all other gods are based upon, you are admitting that people create false gods. On what basis, then, do you know that ''your particular God'' is in fact the true one and not a false reinterpretation of the true one? Certainly all religions have sacred texts claiming that their particular philosophy is the singular truth. If people from other religions and cultures had no way of knowing their God was false, how then would you? With this logic there may be a God but His name may not be Jesus.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;The very existence of fakes gods suggests a real God.&amp;quot;'' There are very many different Santa Clauses throughout the world; Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, Father Frost, etc., etc. But the very existence of so many Santas does ''not'' imply that there must be a ''real'' one too! I suppose you might bring up the very real Saint Nicholas, but if you did you would be providing a naturalistic explanation for mythical variation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your statement that I should not be allowed to believe in free will because other atheists do not is on par with a claim that you should believe in evolution because most people who define themselves as Christians actually do. One person &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''[God] is outside of time. Thus, He already knows what you did decide.'' Because you say so? And you are also trying to tell me that this being who apparently exists outside of time is a &amp;quot;''simple''&amp;quot; being? Besides, I don't even accept the presumption of this argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Gaping chasms, actually.'' Do you honestly believe that people with much more scientific background then either of us--experts in biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, etc--would waste the better part of a century and a half over a theory if it had such &amp;quot;gaping chasms?&amp;quot; How do you account for all of the scientifically-grounded experts currently involved in evolutionary theory if it in fact has no basis in reality?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interestingly Pastuer had the following to say: ''&amp;quot;Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages ('''an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years'''), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.''&amp;quot; Cuny, Hilaire. 1965. Louis Pasteur: ''The man and his theories''. Translated by P. Evans. London: The Scientific Book Club. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for me not adequately responding, why have you not responded to the early example I provided of humans apparently evolving an immunity to HIV/AIDs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, none of my ''&amp;quot;made-up stor[ies] designed to prop up the naturalistic view&amp;quot;'' will convince you of anything. It seems that you think it is sound to reject an argument if you just don't agree with what it implies. We're not going to get anywhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can't prove that God did'int send jesus to more than one planet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's foolish to think that God would make litery quadrillion apon quadrillions of galaxy each containg possibley millions of star systems just so one planet of people could live.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's illogical and since God can't fail and doing anything illoligical is a failure that proves there life on other planets.(as much as anyone elses random &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; its realy a matter of faith for me)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MySpace&amp;diff=507508</id>
		<title>MySpace</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MySpace&amp;diff=507508"/>
		<updated>2008-08-30T20:34:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''MySpace''' is an online social networking web site which allows users to create custom profiles, write diaries (commonly know as [[blog]]s), and upload photos and videos.   It became popular among people in the music industry as a way to build a fanbase and promote their music.   As of March 2007, over 130 Million people use MySpace.&lt;br /&gt;
==Criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
*Many adults have criticized MySpace as being a hotbed for pedophiles and other undesirable users. &lt;br /&gt;
*Many users do not know how much or how little information to put online, sometimes causing them to put far too much personal information online, where anyone can read it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;1561163121;fp;16;fpid;0 &amp;quot;Mr. Safety keeps watch on MySpace security&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Others have criticized it for being the very demise of real-life relationships, instead forcing those relationships onto the internet.&lt;br /&gt;
*Several people have voiced complaints of teenagers posting suggestive or otherwise inappropriate pictures of themselves.  They claim that Myspace has not done enough to protect minors from the dangers associated with the internet.  Myspace responded by implementing a &amp;quot;private&amp;quot; setting for profiles, blocking access to strangers, but this and other security features have done little to sway critics. &lt;br /&gt;
*MySpace has been used by [[atheists]] to promote their blogs, books and to reach out to young people. However, MySpace was very decisive in deleting a large atheist group&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/01/banned-myspace-deletes-largest-atheist.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. MySpace's founder Tom Anderson is himself an atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/30/myspace-cofounder-tom-anderson-was-a-real-life-wargames-hacker-in-1980s/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:information technology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MySpace&amp;diff=507507</id>
		<title>MySpace</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MySpace&amp;diff=507507"/>
		<updated>2008-08-30T20:34:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''MySpace''' is an online social networking web site which allows users to create custom profiles, write diaries (commonly know as [[blog]]s), and upload photos and videos.   It became popular among people in the music industry as a way to build a fanbase and promote their music.   As of March 2007, over 130 Million people use MySpace. Its founder, Tom Anderson, is hims&lt;br /&gt;
==Criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
*Many adults have criticized MySpace as being a hotbed for pedophiles and other undesirable users. &lt;br /&gt;
*Many users do not know how much or how little information to put online, sometimes causing them to put far too much personal information online, where anyone can read it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;1561163121;fp;16;fpid;0 &amp;quot;Mr. Safety keeps watch on MySpace security&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Others have criticized it for being the very demise of real-life relationships, instead forcing those relationships onto the internet.&lt;br /&gt;
*Several people have voiced complaints of teenagers posting suggestive or otherwise inappropriate pictures of themselves.  They claim that Myspace has not done enough to protect minors from the dangers associated with the internet.  Myspace responded by implementing a &amp;quot;private&amp;quot; setting for profiles, blocking access to strangers, but this and other security features have done little to sway critics. &lt;br /&gt;
*MySpace has been used by [[atheists]] to promote their blogs, books and to reach out to young people. However, MySpace was very decisive in deleting a large atheist group&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/01/banned-myspace-deletes-largest-atheist.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. MySpace's founder Tom Anderson is himself an atheist&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/30/myspace-cofounder-tom-anderson-was-a-real-life-wargames-hacker-in-1980s/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:information technology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=506523</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=506523"/>
		<updated>2008-08-29T02:37:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yet you offered no alternative definition.  Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked.  So you haven't answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;, other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''&amp;quot;:  Is it?  I don't believe so.  You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.  I don't believe that.  So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!  See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...&amp;quot;free will&amp;quot; ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''&amp;quot;:  Yet you fail to explain how.  And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''&amp;quot;:  Neither do I.  I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection is not random, but the mutations&amp;amp;mdash;the claimed source of the novel features&amp;amp;mdash;that it supposedly acts on are.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;sick&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;.  I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad.  What defines them as being bad?  Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''&amp;quot;:  No, that's an atheistic fallacy.  The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written.  This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted.  Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.''&amp;quot;:  It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''.  Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand.  That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion.  Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''&amp;quot;:  So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''&amp;quot;:  Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument.  Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''.  It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You're right! Why is that [&amp;quot;meaning&amp;quot; being relative] a problem?''&amp;quot;:  I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''.  Meaning is based on the origin of something.  What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes?  Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)?  I would argue that it's because of the Fall.  Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''.  With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;.''&amp;quot;:  So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''&amp;quot;:  No, I did not.  I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''&amp;quot;:  Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''&amp;quot;:  But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am &amp;quot;''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''&amp;quot; This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''&amp;quot; You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::''&amp;quot;Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined.&amp;quot;'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, &amp;quot;no killing&amp;quot; becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how &amp;quot;morals&amp;quot; have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''&amp;quot; That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''&amp;quot; As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own &amp;quot;meaning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::This is why we can look over &amp;quot;holes&amp;quot; in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not &amp;quot;blind faith,&amp;quot; it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be &amp;quot;God did it.&amp;quot; The rest of the philosophy follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MySpace&amp;diff=506503</id>
		<title>MySpace</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MySpace&amp;diff=506503"/>
		<updated>2008-08-29T01:50:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''MySpace''' is an online social networking web site which allows users to create custom profiles, write diaries (commonly know as [[blog]]s), and upload photos and videos.   It became popular among people in the music industry as a way to build a fanbase and promote their music.   As of March 2007, over 130 Million people use MySpace.&lt;br /&gt;
==Criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
*Many adults have criticized MySpace as being a hotbed for pedophiles and other undesirable users. &lt;br /&gt;
*Many users do not know how much or how little information to put online, sometimes causing them to put far too much personal information online, where anyone can read it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;1561163121;fp;16;fpid;0 &amp;quot;Mr. Safety keeps watch on MySpace security&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Others have criticized it for being the very demise of real-life relationships, instead forcing those relationships onto the internet.&lt;br /&gt;
*Several people have voiced complaints of teenagers posting suggestive or otherwise inappropriate pictures of themselves.  They claim that Myspace has not done enough to protect minors from the dangers associated with the internet.  Myspace responded by implementing a &amp;quot;private&amp;quot; setting for profiles, blocking access to strangers, but this and other security features have done little to sway critics. &lt;br /&gt;
*MySpace has been used by [[atheists]] to promote their blogs, books and to reach out to young people. However, MySpace was very decisive in deleting a large atheist group&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/01/banned-myspace-deletes-largest-atheist.html&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:information technology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Karl_Schroeder&amp;diff=506494</id>
		<title>Karl Schroeder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Karl_Schroeder&amp;diff=506494"/>
		<updated>2008-08-29T01:18:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: New page: '''Karl Schroeder''' is a science fiction / fantasy writer whose novel Pirate Sun examines the origins debate from an uncanny perspective. In the future after humans are extinct, the r...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Karl Schroeder''' is a science fiction / fantasy writer whose novel Pirate Sun examines the [[origins debate]] from an uncanny perspective. In the future after humans are extinct, the robots have conquered the universe. Robot scientists are proponents of [[intelligent design]], that is, intelligent design by humans. Other robots, who follow a religion, claim that they were all evolved atheistically.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=506473</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=506473"/>
		<updated>2008-08-29T00:33:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yet you offered no alternative definition.  Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked.  So you haven't answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;, other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''&amp;quot;:  Is it?  I don't believe so.  You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.  I don't believe that.  So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!  See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...&amp;quot;free will&amp;quot; ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''&amp;quot;:  Yet you fail to explain how.  And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''&amp;quot;:  Neither do I.  I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection is not random, but the mutations&amp;amp;mdash;the claimed source of the novel features&amp;amp;mdash;that it supposedly acts on are.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;sick&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;.  I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad.  What defines them as being bad?  Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''&amp;quot;:  No, that's an atheistic fallacy.  The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written.  This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted.  Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.''&amp;quot;:  It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''.  Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand.  That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion.  Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''&amp;quot;:  So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''&amp;quot;:  Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument.  Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''.  It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You're right! Why is that [&amp;quot;meaning&amp;quot; being relative] a problem?''&amp;quot;:  I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''.  Meaning is based on the origin of something.  What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes?  Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)?  I would argue that it's because of the Fall.  Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''.  With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;.''&amp;quot;:  So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''&amp;quot;:  No, I did not.  I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''&amp;quot;:  Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''&amp;quot;:  But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am &amp;quot;''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''&amp;quot; This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''&amp;quot; You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::''&amp;quot;Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined.&amp;quot;'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, &amp;quot;no killing&amp;quot; becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how &amp;quot;morals&amp;quot; have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''&amp;quot; That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up not to believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''&amp;quot; As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own &amp;quot;meaning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::This is why we can look over &amp;quot;holes&amp;quot; in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not &amp;quot;blind faith,&amp;quot; it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be &amp;quot;God did it.&amp;quot; The rest of the philosophy follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=506453</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=506453"/>
		<updated>2008-08-28T23:48:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Yet you offered no alternative definition.  Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked.  So you haven't answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''&amp;quot;:  I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these &amp;quot;gods&amp;quot;, other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''&amp;quot;:  Is it?  I don't believe so.  You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.  I don't believe that.  So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!  See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...&amp;quot;free will&amp;quot; ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''&amp;quot;:  Yet you fail to explain how.  And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''&amp;quot;:  Neither do I.  I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection is not random, but the mutations&amp;amp;mdash;the claimed source of the novel features&amp;amp;mdash;that it supposedly acts on are.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;sick&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;sad&amp;quot;.  I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad.  What defines them as being bad?  Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''&amp;quot;:  No, that's an atheistic fallacy.  The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written.  This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted.  Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.''&amp;quot;:  It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''.  Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand.  That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion.  Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''&amp;quot;:  So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''&amp;quot;:  Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument.  Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''.  It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You're right! Why is that [&amp;quot;meaning&amp;quot; being relative] a problem?''&amp;quot;:  I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''.  Meaning is based on the origin of something.  What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes?  Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)?  I would argue that it's because of the Fall.  Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''.  With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;.''&amp;quot;:  So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''&amp;quot;:  No, I did not.  I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''&amp;quot;:  Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''&amp;quot;:  But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am &amp;quot;''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''&amp;quot; This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''&amp;quot; You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::''&amp;quot;Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined.&amp;quot;'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, &amp;quot;no killing&amp;quot; becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how &amp;quot;morals&amp;quot; have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''&amp;quot; That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up not to believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''&amp;quot; As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own &amp;quot;meaning.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::This is why we can look over &amp;quot;holes&amp;quot; in evolution theory or Big Bang theory. It's not &amp;quot;blind faith,&amp;quot; it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be &amp;quot;God did it.&amp;quot; The rest of the philosophy follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Raelism&amp;diff=505428</id>
		<title>Raelism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Raelism&amp;diff=505428"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T23:55:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Raelism refers to a [[UFO]] [[religion]] begun in [[France]] by former race car driver Claude Vorilhon, who renamed himself to Rael. In 1974, Rael claimed to experience an alien abduction during which he learned that humans had been created scientifically by extraterrestrial overlords called &amp;quot;Elohim.&amp;quot; Thus the Raelians are proponents of [[intelligent design]], although it is not clear where the aliens themselves originated&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rael. Extraterrestrials Took Me to their Planet (1975)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Raelian beliefs, the Elohim have been misinterpreted in world religions as creator gods. Thus the movement rejects that God or gods actually exist. Though they are technically an [[atheistic]] religion they do not believe in [[evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The religion made international headlines in 2002 when they claimed to have genetically engineered the first healthy, viable, human clone. Raelians do not believe in a supernatural afterlife and thus advocate human cloning and &amp;quot;mind uploading&amp;quot; as a means to ensure eternal life&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec02/cloning_12-27.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|1}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Raelism&amp;diff=505427</id>
		<title>Raelism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Raelism&amp;diff=505427"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T23:55:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Raelism refers to a [[UFO]] [[religion]] begun in [[France]] by former race car driver Claude Vorilhon, who renamed himself to Rael. In 1974, Rael claimed to experience an alien abduction during which he learned that humans had been created scientifically by extraterrestrial overlords called &amp;quot;Elohim.&amp;quot; Thus the Raelians are proponents of [[intelligent design]], although it is not clear where the aliens themselves originated&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rael. Extraterrestrials Took Me to their Planet (1975)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Raelian beliefs, the Elohim have been misinterpreted in world religions as creator gods. Thus the movement rejects that God or gods actually exist. Though they are technically an [[atheistic]] religion they do not believe in [[evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The religion made international headlines in 2002 when they claimed to have genetically engineered the first healthy, viable, human clone. Raelians do not believe in a supernatural afterlife and thus advocate human cloning and &amp;quot;mind uploading&amp;quot; as a means to ensure eternal life&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec02/cloning_12-27.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|1}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Raelism&amp;diff=505426</id>
		<title>Raelism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Raelism&amp;diff=505426"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T23:55:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Raelism refers to a [[UFO]] [[religion]] begun in [[France]] by former race car driver Claude Vorilhon, who renamed himself to Rael. In 1974, Rael claimed to experience an alien abduction during which he learned that humans had been created scientifically by extraterrestrial overlords called &amp;quot;Elohim.&amp;quot; Thus the Raelians are proponents of [[intelligent design]], although it is not clear where the aliens themselves originated&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rael. Extraterrestrials Took Me to their Planet (1975)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Raelian beliefs, the Elohim have been misinterpreted in world religions as creator gods. Thus the movement rejects that God or gods actually exist. Though they are technically an [[atheistic]] religion they do not believe in [[evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The religion made international headlines in 2002 when they claimed to have genetically engineered the first healthy, viable, human clone. Raelians do not believe in a supernatural afterlife and thus advocate human cloning and &amp;quot;mind uploading&amp;quot; as a means to ensure eternal life&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec02/cloning_12-27.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|1}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505419</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505419"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T23:50:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? &lt;br /&gt;
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505418</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505418"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T23:49:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''&amp;quot;:  Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; believer).  Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''&amp;quot;:  I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of &amp;quot;both&amp;quot;), and read into my comments something that is not there.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''&amp;quot;:  Define &amp;quot;wicked&amp;quot; without invoking God or subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''&amp;quot;:  What does it need to be saved from?  Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''&amp;quot;:  That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex.  But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot; has no basis.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''&amp;quot;:  Not from a &amp;quot;certain point&amp;quot;, but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''&amp;quot;:  No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion.  The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion.  Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God &amp;quot;stretching out the heavens&amp;quot;, i.e. a different cause for the same observation.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''&amp;quot;:  Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs.  We're funny like that.  But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''&amp;quot;:  That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''&amp;quot;:  Do you work for an employer?  Does he have tasks for you to do?  Does that mean that you are his &amp;quot;wind-up toy&amp;quot;?  Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''&amp;quot;:  Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''This is why free market capitalism works.''&amp;quot;: No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''&amp;quot;:  So do I.  But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will?  You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect.''&amp;quot;: Oh?  It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), &amp;quot;...it is far from obvious that God is complex.&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition.&amp;quot;:  By ''what'' definition?  If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that &amp;quot;flour&amp;quot; now reads &amp;quot;blour&amp;quot;, what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''&amp;quot;: Exactly.  It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information:  there's no source of ''new'' information.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''&amp;quot;:  The &amp;quot;approximately 4 billion years&amp;quot; is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''&amp;quot;:  Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence?  I ''know'' that's the claim.  I ''dispute'' the claim.  In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''&amp;quot;:  Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''.  It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation.  Don't believe me?  Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that &amp;quot;God did it&amp;quot;.  No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered.  I ''can'' consider both &amp;quot;is God responsible&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;is it something natural?&amp;quot;, but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration.  (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys!  And I sometimes ask God to help me find them.  And it appears to help.)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''&amp;quot;:  First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''.  Second, why don't they say &amp;quot;Zeus does it&amp;quot;?  Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues?  Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study.  So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a &amp;quot;naturalistic&amp;quot; viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up.  If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today.  That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it.  See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity!  If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute.  Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''&amp;quot;:  Nonsense.  It's not communistic to describe things as they are.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''&amp;quot;:  All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance.  So the &amp;quot;verification&amp;quot; that you speak of is not verification at all.  You've not answered the question.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: &amp;quot;''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''&amp;quot;: Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities.  Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.&lt;br /&gt;
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution?  Is it a morality issue?  Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is &amp;quot;wicked.&amp;quot; There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!&lt;br /&gt;
Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, the free market works because of &amp;quot;free will,&amp;quot; which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!&lt;br /&gt;
And what's all this about &amp;quot;random chance.&amp;quot; Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What do we need to be saved from?&amp;quot; Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an &amp;quot;atheistic myth,&amp;quot; but I call it math.&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented.&amp;quot; You're right! Why is that a problem? Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that &amp;quot;Zeus did it&amp;quot;. It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.&lt;br /&gt;
By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).&lt;br /&gt;
Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_inerrancy&amp;diff=505029</id>
		<title>Biblical inerrancy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_inerrancy&amp;diff=505029"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T01:18:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the original [[Bible]] is without flaw or error, even when it comes to the historical and scientific views presented in the Bible. This view is supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]]. Biblical inerrancy is popular among [[Young Earth Creationists]] and [[Biblical literalists]].  &lt;br /&gt;
As many as one third of Americans hold this position&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Geisler &amp;amp; Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:bible]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_inerrancy&amp;diff=505026</id>
		<title>Biblical inerrancy</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_inerrancy&amp;diff=505026"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T01:15:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the doctrinal position that the original [[Bible]] is without flaw or error, even when it comes to the historical and scientific views presented in the Bible. This view is supported by the idea that the Bible is the message from God to mankind, and therefore cannot be [[Alleged Bible contradictions|in error]]. Biblical inerrancy is popular among [[Young Earth Creationists]] and [[Biblical literalists]].  &lt;br /&gt;
As many as one third of Americans hold this position.&lt;br /&gt;
Some argue that if the [[Alleged Bible contradictions|Bible]] cannot be proven inerrant, then the claim within it would be irrelevant.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Geisler &amp;amp; Nix (1986). ''A General Introduction to the Bible.'' Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-8024-2916-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.inerrancy.org Christian Debater]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.tektonics.org Tekton Apologetics Ministries]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:bible]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Methodological_naturalism&amp;diff=505015</id>
		<title>Methodological naturalism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Methodological_naturalism&amp;diff=505015"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T01:04:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roger Pennock declared that &amp;quot;science is not based upon a dogmatic [[ontological]] or [[metaphysical]] [[naturalism]], but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, [[methodological]] manner.&amp;quot; [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider [[supernatural]] causes - even as a remote possibility.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first methodological naturalist is sometimes considered to have been [[Thales]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.naturalism.org/history.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, who explained earthquakes (which were traditionally attributed to the anger of the god [[Poseidon]]) with an early form of [[plate tectonic theory]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Padamsee, Hasan. Unifying the Universe: the Physics of Heaven and Earth. CRC Press, 2003. Page 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], &amp;quot;The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as &amp;quot;scientific,&amp;quot; it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The methods of science, it is claimed, &amp;quot;give us no purchase&amp;quot; on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Critique==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This kind of approach is the result of application of the [[epistemology]] of either of the [[empirical]] philosophies of [[pragmatism]] or [[logical positivism]], and (because it is a [[methodology]] developed without first establishing the [[ontological]] principles of the world) is unfounded.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the [[Intelligent Design]] Programme instead.  Presuppositionalists also contend that methodological naturalism is inherently [[atheistic]], since it would be a meaningless exercise to define the rules of empirical inquiry in an entirely arbitrary manner.  Since we define the rules of empirical inquiry in such a way that the ontological systematicness of the world is reflected in the method, the methodological naturalist's claim that methodological naturalism is independent of ontological naturalism is [[deceit|disingenuous]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Defense==&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of methodological naturalism point out that it in no way requires or implies [[naturalism|philosophical naturalism]]. Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.{{circular}} And the assumption that a supernatural force is not going to affect the outcome of an experiment is no more unreasonable than the assumption that supernatural forces are not going to miraculously poison all the apples in the supermarket.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm Methodological Naturalism? Part 2] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]] - From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315 The Rules of the Game] by [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Methodological_naturalism&amp;diff=505013</id>
		<title>Methodological naturalism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Methodological_naturalism&amp;diff=505013"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T01:04:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roger Pennock declared that &amp;quot;science is not based upon a dogmatic [[ontological]] or [[metaphysical]] [[naturalism]], but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, [[methodological]] manner.&amp;quot; [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider [[supernatural]] causes - even as a remote possibility.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first methodological naturalist is sometimes considered to have been [[Thales]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.naturalism.org/history.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, who explained earthquakes (which were traditionally attributed to the anger of the god [[Poseidon]]) with an early form of [[plate tectonic theory]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Padamsee, Hasan. Unifying the Universe: the Physics of Heaven and Earth. CRC Press, 2003. Page 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], &amp;quot;The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as &amp;quot;scientific,&amp;quot; it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The methods of science, it is claimed, &amp;quot;give us no purchase&amp;quot; on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Critique==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This kind of approach is the result of application of the [[epistemology]] of either of the [[empirical]] philosophies of [[pragmatism]] or [[logical positivism]], and (because it is a [[methodology]] developed without first establishing the [[ontological]] principles of the world) is unfounded.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the [[Intelligent Design]] Programme instead.  Presuppositionalists also contend that methodological naturalism is inherently [[atheistic]], since it would be a meaningless exercise to define the rules of empirical inquiry in an entirely arbitrary manner.  Since we define the rules of empirical inquiry in such a way that the ontological systematicness of the world is reflected in the method, the methodological naturalist's claim that methodological naturalism is independent of ontological naturalism is [[deceit|disingenuous]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Defense==&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of methodological naturalism point out that it in no way requires or implies [[naturalism|philosophical naturalism]]. Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.{{circular}} And the assumption that a supernatural force is not going to affect the outcome of an experiment is no more unreasonable than the assumption that supernatural forces are not going to miraculously poison all the apples in the supermarket.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm Methodological Naturalism? Part 2] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]] - From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315 The Rules of the Game] by [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Methodological_naturalism&amp;diff=505012</id>
		<title>Methodological naturalism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Methodological_naturalism&amp;diff=505012"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T01:03:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Methodological naturalism''' is a strategy &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roger Pennock declared that &amp;quot;science is not based upon a dogmatic [[ontological]] or [[metaphysical]] [[naturalism]], but rather makes use of naturalism only in a heuristic, [[methodological]] manner.&amp;quot; [http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_SupNatExpl.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider [[supernatural]] causes - even as a remote possibility.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first methodological naturalist is sometimes considered to have been [[Thales]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.naturalism.org/history.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, who explained earthquakes--which were traditionally attributed to the anger of the god Poseidon--instead with an early form of plate tectonic theory&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Padamsee, Hasan. Unifying the Universe: the Physics of Heaven and Earth. CRC Press, 2003. Page 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Christian]] [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Alvin Plantinga]], &amp;quot;The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as &amp;quot;scientific,&amp;quot; it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The methods of science, it is claimed, &amp;quot;give us no purchase&amp;quot; on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Alvin Plantinga], Department of Philosophy, Decio Hall, University of Notre Dame &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Critique==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This kind of approach is the result of application of the [[epistemology]] of either of the [[empirical]] philosophies of [[pragmatism]] or [[logical positivism]], and (because it is a [[methodology]] developed without first establishing the [[ontological]] principles of the world) is unfounded.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the reason that [[Presuppositionalist Metaphysics|presuppositionalists]] do not subscribe to methodological naturalism, relying on the [[Intelligent Design]] Programme instead.  Presuppositionalists also contend that methodological naturalism is inherently [[atheistic]], since it would be a meaningless exercise to define the rules of empirical inquiry in an entirely arbitrary manner.  Since we define the rules of empirical inquiry in such a way that the ontological systematicness of the world is reflected in the method, the methodological naturalist's claim that methodological naturalism is independent of ontological naturalism is [[deceit|disingenuous]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Defense==&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of methodological naturalism point out that it in no way requires or implies [[naturalism|philosophical naturalism]]. Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.{{circular}} And the assumption that a supernatural force is not going to affect the outcome of an experiment is no more unreasonable than the assumption that supernatural forces are not going to miraculously poison all the apples in the supermarket.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm Methodological Naturalism? Part 2] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html Methodological Naturalism?] by [[Alvin Plantinga]] - From Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143-154.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315 The Rules of the Game] by [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505007</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505007"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T00:55:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505002</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=505002"/>
		<updated>2008-08-26T00:40:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::A few other things I'd like to note:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&amp;quot;'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to say that there is '''one''' meaning for everyone.&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot;Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&amp;quot;'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504892</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504892"/>
		<updated>2008-08-25T20:35:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''&amp;quot;:  I believe that the &amp;quot;inflationary, Big Bang model&amp;quot; came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''&amp;quot;:  There's not much evidence even now!&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''&amp;quot;:  Egocentric?  When ego is not the reason for thinking that?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...and just simply silly (sorry).''&amp;quot;: Because you say so?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&amp;quot;:  Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre.  If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct.  But we might say that the town hall is in the &amp;quot;centre of town&amp;quot;.  How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless?  Rather, by &amp;quot;centre&amp;quot; we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point.  That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''&amp;quot;:  Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity.  Information ''can'' be created and destroyed.  Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it.  Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it.  Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (&amp;lt;--did you read that?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot;''&amp;quot;:  Wrong.  A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree.  No new information required.  But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''&amp;quot;:  If true (you will note that a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;although they don't tell you that he's a biologist&amp;amp;mdash;has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information.  Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones.  It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''&amp;quot;:  Again, just because you say so?  Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''&amp;quot;:  Yes it is.  Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.  For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation.  For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution.  Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example.  And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man.  If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from?  There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless.  Not incompatible?  Hah!  It's diametrically opposed.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''&amp;quot;:  Ah!  So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible!  Yet you just (effectively) denied that!  By the way, it's not incompatible with a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot;, but with what the Old Testament actually records.  That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''&amp;quot;:  You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''.  Chalk and cheese.  Rules can be changed.  History doesn't.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''&amp;quot;:  How about as useful as a &amp;quot;literal interpretation&amp;quot; of ancient Roman history?  Or a literal interpretation of evolution?  (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''&amp;quot;:  Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance.  Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''&amp;quot;:  What do you mean by &amp;quot;make the most&amp;quot;?  The most what?  With atheism, nothing has any meaning.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''&amp;quot;: Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God&amp;amp;mdash;because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things.  God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him.  You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just &amp;quot;waiting around to die&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''&amp;quot;:  No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life.  The &amp;quot;personal demise&amp;quot; is a new ''start'', not an end.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife.''&amp;quot;:  No, because God has work for them to do here.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''&amp;quot;:  Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''.  But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''&amp;quot;:  I haven't actually looked at your edits yet!  When I get time...&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;&amp;quot;...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...&amp;quot;: Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution.&amp;quot;  Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious.  People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly &amp;quot;Christian.&amp;quot; I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say &amp;quot;why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.,&amp;quot; as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was &amp;quot;prophesied&amp;quot; to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation...&amp;quot; So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that &amp;quot;''God has tasks for you to do''&amp;quot; here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his &amp;quot;personal&amp;quot; aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D &lt;br /&gt;
:::::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504523</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504523"/>
		<updated>2008-08-24T22:50:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exotheology ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Exotheology]]''&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Many Christians examine the possibility of extraterrestrial life from within a Christian perspective. Many believe that if aliens exist they would necessarily be free from [[Original Sin]] as they are not descended from the Earthly Adam and Eve. Proponents of this view include the [[Vatican]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Willey, David. &amp;quot;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm Vatican says aliens could exist]?&amp;quot; ''BBC News'' (London), 13 May, 2008. Retrieved August 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[C. S. Lewis]] who expanded upon the idea in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. In the book a human explores Mars which, due to its isolation from Earth, is free from sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504521</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504521"/>
		<updated>2008-08-24T22:41:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504520</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504520"/>
		<updated>2008-08-24T22:40:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body.''&amp;quot;:  For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have.  How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated?  Assuming we are using &amp;quot;complicated&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;complex&amp;quot; as synonyms, see this:&lt;br /&gt;
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}&lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines...''&amp;quot;:  I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified.  Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial.  However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations.  For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is).  A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it.  This makes the bacteria &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism).  Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism.  It doesn't have one.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.  I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far.  But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views.  If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny.  That can produce extreme pride in ourselves.  On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone.  We are essentially worthless.  That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.).  Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special.  But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities.  That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they &amp;quot;rejected&amp;quot; it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''&lt;br /&gt;
While your point that evolution does not create &amp;quot;new information&amp;quot; is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create &amp;quot;new information.&amp;quot; Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm&lt;br /&gt;
''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.&lt;br /&gt;
Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression). &lt;br /&gt;
To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be &amp;quot;born again.&amp;quot; Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people &amp;quot;seize the day.&amp;quot; I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).&lt;br /&gt;
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504095</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504095"/>
		<updated>2008-08-24T00:30:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Exotheology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exotheology ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Exotheology]]''&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Many Christians examine the possibility of extraterrestrial life from within a Christian perspective. Many believe that if aliens exist they would necessarily be free from [[Original Sin]] as they are not descended from the Earthly Adam and Eve. Proponents of this view include the [[Vatican]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[C. S. Lewis]] who expanded upon the idea in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. In the book a human explores Mars which, due to its isolation from Earth, is free from sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504093</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504093"/>
		<updated>2008-08-24T00:29:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exotheology ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article: [[Exotheology]]''&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Many Christians examine the possibility of extraterrestrial life from within a Christian perspective. Many believe that if aliens exist they would necessarily be free from [[Original Sin]] as they are not descended from the Earthly Adam and Eve. Proponents of this view include the Vatican&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[C. S. Lewis]] who expanded upon the idea in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. In the book a human explores Mars which, due to its isolation from Earth, is free from sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vegetarianism&amp;diff=504083</id>
		<title>Vegetarianism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vegetarianism&amp;diff=504083"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T23:58:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Fruits.jpg|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reasons for Vegetarianism==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic religion]]s, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Sikhism]] and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Pythagoreanism]] also required its followers to abstain from meat, fish, and beans. It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to inhumane farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health can be given as another reason. Medical experts know vegetarians generally have lower risks of cancer, heart disease&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2526891.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, osteoporosis, and obesity&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4801570.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Also, in Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Forms of Vegetarianism==&lt;br /&gt;
*'''[[Vegan]]''' - A vegan diet excludes all food and ingredients that comes from animals.  This excludes animal meat, animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs or honey, and byproducts such as gelatin.  Effort is needed to make a vegan diet healthy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.vegan.org/going_vegan/eating_vegan/index.html Vegan regimen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Vegan&amp;quot; can refer both to the diet and the dieter.&lt;br /&gt;
*'''Lactovegetarian''' - Someone who eats a plant-based diet but also eats animal produced foods (that do not result in the death of the animal) such as milk and cheese. Lacto vegetarians can relatively easily remain healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or '''lacto-ovo-vegetarian''') - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.&lt;br /&gt;
*'''Pescatarian''' - This is considered a form of vegetarianism, which consists of eating [[fish]], but no other varieties of meat. [[Egg]]s and dairy may be part of this diet. Since fish are still living animals, stricter vegetarians (especially those who are vegetarians for moral reasons) are likely to feel that pescatarians are not true vegetarians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nutritional Issues==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some nutritionists have argued that vegetarianism is an unsustainable diet. It can be difficult to regularly get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products every day. [[Soy]], [[nut]]s and [[bean]]s are often used as a substitute for meat and protein, but nonetheless many vegetarians have to take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Nutrionist Dr. Ray Sahelian warns &amp;quot;Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html Dr. Ray Sahelian]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Vegetarians suffer from higher rates of certain diseases, such as [[osteoporosis]], [[anemia]], [[bulimia]], and [[thyroid]] problems due to the lack of [[calcium]] and other nutrients in their diets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast, the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have taken the position that properly planned vegetarian diets can be nutritious, healthy, and provide benefits in helping prevent and treat some diseases, possibly with the help of nutritional supplements.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm Vegetarian Diets]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Famous Vegetarians==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:H G Wells 2.jpg|right|H G Wells]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]. He became a vegetarian a year before his death.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adolf Hitler]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Shania Twain]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mohandas K. Gandhi]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Siddhartha Gautama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mahavira]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Thomas Edison]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ralph Waldo  Emerson]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paul McCartney]] - singer/bassist for [[The Beatles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;www.famousveggie.com[http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Henry A. Wallace]] - Vice President of the U.S. 1941-1945; Presidential candidate 1948&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adam and Eve]], at least while in Eden (Genesis 1:29)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Naturopathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adrian Vander]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Meatarianism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html The Myths of Vegetarianism by Stephen Byrnes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Health]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vegetarianism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vegetarianism&amp;diff=504081</id>
		<title>Vegetarianism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vegetarianism&amp;diff=504081"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T23:55:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Fruits.jpg|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reasons for Vegetarianism==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic religion]]s, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Sikhism]] and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Pythagoreanism]] also required its followers to abstain from meat, fish, and beans. It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to inhumane farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Health can be given as another reason. Medical experts know vegetarians generally have lower risks of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and obesity. Also, in Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Forms of Vegetarianism==&lt;br /&gt;
*'''[[Vegan]]''' - A vegan diet excludes all food and ingredients that comes from animals.  This excludes animal meat, animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs or honey, and byproducts such as gelatin.  Effort is needed to make a vegan diet healthy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.vegan.org/going_vegan/eating_vegan/index.html Vegan regimen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Vegan&amp;quot; can refer both to the diet and the dieter.&lt;br /&gt;
*'''Lactovegetarian''' - Someone who eats a plant-based diet but also eats animal produced foods (that do not result in the death of the animal) such as milk and cheese. Lacto vegetarians can relatively easily remain healthy.&lt;br /&gt;
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or '''lacto-ovo-vegetarian''') - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.&lt;br /&gt;
*'''Pescatarian''' - This is considered a form of vegetarianism, which consists of eating [[fish]], but no other varieties of meat. [[Egg]]s and dairy may be part of this diet. Since fish are still living animals, stricter vegetarians (especially those who are vegetarians for moral reasons) are likely to feel that pescatarians are not true vegetarians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nutritional Issues==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some nutritionists have argued that vegetarianism is an unsustainable diet. It can be difficult to regularly get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products every day. [[Soy]], [[nut]]s and [[bean]]s are often used as a substitute for meat and protein, but nonetheless many vegetarians have to take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Nutrionist Dr. Ray Sahelian warns &amp;quot;Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html Dr. Ray Sahelian]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Vegetarians suffer from higher rates of certain diseases, such as [[osteoporosis]], [[anemia]], [[bulimia]], and [[thyroid]] problems due to the lack of [[calcium]] and other nutrients in their diets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast, the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have taken the position that properly planned vegetarian diets can be nutritious, healthy, and provide benefits in helping prevent and treat some diseases, possibly with the help of nutritional supplements.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm Vegetarian Diets]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Famous Vegetarians==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:H G Wells 2.jpg|right|H G Wells]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]. He became a vegetarian a year before his death.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adolf Hitler]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Shania Twain]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mohandas K. Gandhi]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Siddhartha Gautama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mahavira]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Thomas Edison]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ralph Waldo  Emerson]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paul McCartney]] - singer/bassist for [[The Beatles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;www.famousveggie.com[http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Henry A. Wallace]] - Vice President of the U.S. 1941-1945; Presidential candidate 1948&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adam and Eve]], at least while in Eden (Genesis 1:29)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Naturopathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adrian Vander]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Meatarianism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html The Myths of Vegetarianism by Stephen Byrnes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Health]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Vegetarianism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504079</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504079"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T23:17:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exotheology ===&lt;br /&gt;
''Main article: [[Exotheology]]''&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Many Christians examine the possibility of extraterrestrial life from within a Christian perspective. Many believe that if aliens exist they would necessarily be free from [[Original Sin]] as they are not descended from the Earthly Adam and Eve. Proponents of this view include the Vatican&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[C. S. Lewis]] who expanded upon the idea in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. In the book a human explores Mars which, due to its isolation from Earth, is free from sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504078</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504078"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T23:16:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Exotheology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exotheology ===&lt;br /&gt;
''Main article: [[Exotheology]]''&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Many Christians examine the possibility of extraterrestrial life from within a Christian perspective. Many believe that if aliens exist they would necessarily be free from [[Original Sin]] as they are not descended from the Earthly Adam and Eve. Proponents of this view include the Vatican&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[C. S. Lewis]] who expanded upon the idea in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. In the book a human explores Mars which, due to its isolation from Earth, is free from sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504077</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504077"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T23:16:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Exotheology */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exotheology ===&lt;br /&gt;
''Main article: [[Exotheology]]''&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Many Christians examine the possibility of extraterrestrial life from within a Christian perspective. Many believe that if aliens exist they would necessarily be free from [[Original Sin]] as they are not descended from the Earthly Adam and Eve. Proponents of this view include the Vatican&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[CS Lewis]] who expanded upon the idea in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. In the book a human explores Mars which, due to its isolation from Earth, is free from sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504076</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504076"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T23:15:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Exotheology ===&lt;br /&gt;
''Main article: Exotheology''&lt;br /&gt;
Many Christians examine the possibility of extraterrestrial life from within a Christian perspective. Many believe that if aliens exist they would necessarily be free from [[Original Sin]] as they are not descended from the Earthly Adam and Eve. Proponents of this view include the Vatican&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and [[CS Lewis]] who expanded upon the idea in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. In the book a human explores Mars which, due to its isolation from Earth, is free from sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504017</id>
		<title>Talk:Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=504017"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T21:32:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==  The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:It absolutely does. &amp;quot;Let us make man in Our own image and likeness.&amp;quot; Not, &amp;quot;Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though.  It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation.  But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?&lt;br /&gt;
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the &amp;quot;other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't.&amp;quot; I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say &amp;quot;we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::&amp;quot;Parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say &amp;quot;ET doesn't exist&amp;quot; then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the &amp;quot;parts left out of the Bible&amp;quot; question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot; The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible?  Like the Mormons.  The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens?  That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too.  Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians?  Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hydroplate theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of an alien &amp;quot;nation-state&amp;quot; makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do.  What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself?  --&amp;lt;font style=&amp;quot;background: #000055&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;verdana&amp;quot; color=&amp;quot;#FFFFFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Lambchop|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;yellow&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Lambchop&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article?  That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap.  Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term &amp;quot;Western civilization&amp;quot; refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
:::In sum, &amp;quot;civilization&amp;quot; includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.&lt;br /&gt;
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to &amp;quot;Western civilization.&amp;quot; Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opening Sentence==&lt;br /&gt;
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the &amp;quot;if they exist&amp;quot; segment.  Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause &amp;quot;if they exist,&amp;quot; you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; and will remain an &amp;quot;if.&amp;quot;--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying &amp;quot;no definite proof of their existance&amp;quot; or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a &amp;quot;fanciful concept.&amp;quot; Or maybe an adjective like &amp;quot;impossible.&amp;quot; I am being very generous by using a simple &amp;quot;if&amp;quot; statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I have to disagree.  The sentence currently reads &amp;quot;if such a thing existed&amp;quot;, implying that it doesn't.  Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cite doesn't match passage ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the article ''&amp;quot;The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven&amp;quot;&amp;quot;'' is cited with two passages:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''26 Then God said, &amp;quot;Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''27 So God created man in his own image,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;in the image of God he created him;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;male and female he created them.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, &amp;quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''&amp;quot;And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.&amp;quot;''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The fold called &amp;quot;this fold&amp;quot; in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. &amp;quot;Other sheep not of this fold&amp;quot; are Gentiles (literally, &amp;quot;nationals,&amp;quot; from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a &amp;quot;fallen world&amp;quot; is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a &amp;quot;close encounter of the second kind.&amp;quot; But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too  many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes &amp;quot;are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts.&amp;quot; I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of &amp;quot;intelligent, rational, and self-aware&amp;quot; life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so &amp;quot;special&amp;quot; and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; elsewhere cannot exist! &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. &amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;FFD700&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;000000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TerryH, yes lovely purple prose.  But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility.  [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== wow... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic.  Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good.  But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article.  You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Compromise ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==&lt;br /&gt;
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to.  Terms such as &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; should be handled by linking to the Life article, &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on.  {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}&lt;br /&gt;
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going.  However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, &amp;quot;race&amp;quot;) are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not.  On &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot;, for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.&lt;br /&gt;
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms &amp;quot;extraterrestrial&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;life.&amp;quot; The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The &amp;quot;Definitions&amp;quot; section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That's two of the eight definitions.  Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a &amp;quot;definitions&amp;quot; section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; redirects to [[John Conway]]&amp;amp;mdash;an electronic game designer.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
OK, I think this is better.  [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==&lt;br /&gt;
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man&amp;amp;mdash;[[Noah]]&amp;amp;mdash;to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&amp;amp;db_key=AST&amp;amp;data_type=HTML&amp;amp;format=&amp;amp;high=42ca922c9c30954&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;hyperballoon&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;phases of Venus&amp;quot; to convince me or anyone that &amp;quot;relative motion looks the same everywhere you look.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;solution&amp;quot; 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]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;amp;mdash;[[Abraham]]&amp;amp;mdash;and brought him to a specific &amp;quot;promised&amp;quot; [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything. What if our &amp;quot;central&amp;quot; galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''&amp;quot;:  One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be.  Jesus can take our punishment because He is our &amp;quot;kinsman redeemer&amp;quot;.  He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve.  Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''&amp;quot;:  From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct:  We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point.  However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe.  (The link does not even address this.)  To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I along with many others propose that the 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.''&amp;quot;:  First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance.  If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter.  Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there.  Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''&amp;quot;:  It doesn't.  It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''&amp;quot;:  God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''&amp;quot;:  Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything.  Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit.  You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.  And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''&amp;quot;:  Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''&amp;quot;:  As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe.  An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot; of anything.''&amp;quot;:  Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...even if our galaxy was in the &amp;quot;center&amp;quot;, our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''&amp;quot;:  The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of.  Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy.  As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.  Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.  That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy.  Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''&amp;quot;:  Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens!  Does that sound right?  No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''&amp;quot;:  That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology.  Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of &amp;quot;parts&amp;quot; shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a &amp;quot;simple&amp;quot; answer for anything.&lt;br /&gt;
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''&amp;quot;natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit.&amp;quot;'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing &amp;quot;more fit&amp;quot; specimen. Bacteria periodically &amp;quot;adapt&amp;quot; to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that &amp;quot;some other mechanism&amp;quot; is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by &amp;quot;some mechanism.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''&amp;quot;it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.&amp;quot;'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?&lt;br /&gt;
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the &amp;quot;pinnacle of evolution&amp;quot; (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?&lt;br /&gt;
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=UFO&amp;diff=503697</id>
		<title>UFO</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=UFO&amp;diff=503697"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T03:46:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The word 'UFO' stands for 'Unidentified Flying Object', but has come in general usage to mean a spaceship from outer space, piloted by [[aliens]], or non-human [[Extraterrestrial life|extraterrestrials]]. UFOs are often believed to be in the shape of flying saucers, but many other shapes have been reported, such as cigar shapes and triangles. The first modern sighting was made in 1947 by US pilot Kevin Arnold. Arnold's description of &amp;quot;flying saucers&amp;quot; entered the public imagination. That summer a flying saucer was alleged to have crashed at a town called [[Roswell]], complete with miniature humanoid occupants. Many alleged sightings have been made since then, and many people claim to have been abducted by aliens and subjected to experimentation. Despite all these claims, no concrete evidence has ever emerged that aliens exist. Many alternative explanations for the abduction phenomena have been put forward by a number of people. Among the most prominent of these is &amp;quot;sleep paralysis,&amp;quot; a sleep-related disorder which can induce sensations very similar to those reported in abductions, posited by [[Carl Sagan]], well-known for his thoughts on [[extraterrestrial life]]. Many conservative Christians believe that UFOs can be explained by 'false messiahs and false prophecies' as predicted to come by Christ.&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:science]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:psychology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=503689</id>
		<title>Extraterrestrial life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_life&amp;diff=503689"/>
		<updated>2008-08-23T03:33:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Stirlatez: /* Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[Life science|life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''life'' is here used in its usual manner to connote living things, regardless of complexity or condition of sentience.  However, in [[science fiction]] especially, extraterrestrial life may take unconventional form, such as non-carbon-based life forms or even disembodied intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term ''race'' here means a species of sentient individuals (not an ethnographic subdivision of a single species); for example, humans all belong to only one race, the human race.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==&lt;br /&gt;
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the &amp;quot;micro&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macro&amp;quot; aspects of the problem:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.&lt;br /&gt;
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# Did life on earth begin with the &amp;quot;seeding&amp;quot; of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.&lt;br /&gt;
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Water]]&lt;br /&gt;
# An [[atmosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, &amp;quot;[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars],&amp;quot; ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Lockridge, &amp;quot;[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]&amp;quot;, ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Authors unknown, &amp;quot;[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and of other scientists and advocacy groups&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, &amp;quot;[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites],&amp;quot; ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. &amp;quot;Directed Panspermia,&amp;quot; ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such  missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====&lt;br /&gt;
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.&lt;br /&gt;
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa (moon)|Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbor life.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178° Celsius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===&lt;br /&gt;
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of &amp;quot;[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]].&amp;quot; These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, &amp;quot;[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]&amp;quot;, ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&amp;amp;b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations.  This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as &amp;quot;unknown,&amp;quot; they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various &amp;quot;witnesses&amp;quot; report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a &amp;quot;distributed computing&amp;quot; project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Drake Equation====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy.  The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available.  Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number.  However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable.  For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero.  This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life.  One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life.  Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:&lt;br /&gt;
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or&lt;br /&gt;
# An extraterrestrial &amp;quot;refugee&amp;quot; that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,&lt;br /&gt;
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:&lt;br /&gt;
# To invade the earth by main force.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==&lt;br /&gt;
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter.  Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===John 10:16 ===&lt;br /&gt;
Compatibility advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that &amp;quot;other sheep&amp;quot; might include extraterrestrial races. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uniqueness of the Atonement===&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or &amp;quot;cosmos&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the &amp;quot;hour of temptation&amp;quot; (see above) came to pass.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Extent of the Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==&lt;br /&gt;
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#'''Church of [[Scientology]]''' founder [[L. Ron Hubbard]] has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Raelism|Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials &amp;quot;UFO&amp;quot; (for Unidentified Flying Object) in their names, ''viz.'', &amp;quot;Mutual UFO Network&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Center for UFO Studies,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Fund for UFO Research&amp;quot;, express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the &amp;quot;Mother Wheel,&amp;quot; and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:&amp;lt;ref name=Reason&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming].&amp;quot; Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn&amp;gt;Gleghorn, Michael. &amp;quot;[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings].&amp;quot; Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. &amp;lt;ref name=Blade&amp;gt;Tarjanyi, Judy. &amp;quot;[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&amp;amp;Avis=TO&amp;amp;Dato=20030104&amp;amp;Kategori=NEWS10&amp;amp;Lopenr=101040052&amp;amp;Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism].&amp;quot; ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following newspaper excerpt&amp;lt;ref name=Blade/&amp;gt; summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.&amp;lt;ref name=Gleghorn/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Reason/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Bohlin&amp;gt;Bohlin, Ray. &amp;quot;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]&amp;quot; Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=CMI&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=AiG&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers].&amp;quot; Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public speculation on ET's and UFO's ==&lt;br /&gt;
Public discussion of the subject is mostly confined to the margins, but several scientists and celebrities have expressed opinions, as have a few politicians.&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]] has openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm]  See [[Jimmy Carter]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.&amp;lt;ref name=Kucinich&amp;gt;User &amp;quot;nikbaron&amp;quot;. [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO].&amp;quot; ''&amp;lt;http://youtube.com&amp;gt;,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=Feagler&amp;gt;Feagler, Dick. &amp;quot;[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&amp;amp;coll=2&amp;amp;thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?&amp;quot; ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Even more recently, [[Project Apollo]] [[Astronaut]] Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for [[Apollo 14]], declared that [[NASA]] has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this. NASA does not stand by Astronaut Mitchell's statements.&amp;lt;ref name=Mitchell&amp;gt;Authors unknown. &amp;quot;[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html Apollo 14 astronaut claims aliens HAVE made contact - but it has been covered up for 60 years].&amp;quot; ''The Daily Mail'' ([[London]], [[England]], [[UK]]), July 24, 2008. Accessed July 24, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Discussion of the religious implications of extraterrestrial life has been intermittent.  The subject is sometimes are referred to as [[Exotheology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Exotheology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Astronomy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Stirlatez</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>