Conservapedia:AFD Exotheology

Delete

The entry has nothing to do with the title, save the first sentence. ColinR^talk 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Seconded. Most of the material should be merged with UFO. But it looks like Andy and Conservative want to get this one on the front page by tomorrow [1] so who knows? Lambchop 00:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the name for the belief in life in outer space. It is from Time magazine, a liberal publication. Do you have a better alternative?--Aschlafly 00:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure you don't mean "Exobiology", which even its own enthusiasts admit is a 'science without a subject"? --BobD 00:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Funny, the Time articles cited explicitly refers to exotheology as the theology of outer space, not the belief in ET life. Moreover, the article 's entire point is about the effect ET life could have on God. And even funnier is how the liberal publication's article entire point is how ET life could even reinforce the Christian God. ColinR^talk 01:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between exotheology and the study of extraterestial (sp?) life. Nevermind the fact that saying alien life is a liberal belief, this article is embarassing to have on the front page.

Delete. The article itself reads very confused, and the passing swipe at a 'liberal belief system' speaks for itself. --Wikinterpreter

My main argument is that this article is certainly not good enough for the front page, where it is currently being referred to from. Embarassing.--PalMD^talk 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Keep

The author explains the title, and has good sources for it. And the article, by whatever title, has a definite place here.--TerryH^Talk 09:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

We should document the debate about spending vast amounts of money on the ideological crusade which is SETI. Exobiology isn't science at all. Good on Aschlafly for pointing that out. --Pacman 10:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This is the same argument they made against funding the Columbus expedition. The bible never mentioned any "new world" Lambchop 10:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense, the exploration of the new world was based on the common sense observation that the world was round and partially unmapped, combined with extrapolating from the observed fact that humans were widespread in the known world. It was entirely reasonable to send ships to trade with and explore the blank bits of the map.

By contrast, exobiologists concoct a fantasy version of space that is the exact opposite of what has been observed. The hard science of it is that the universe is big and empty. --Pacman 12:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nor did the Bible define the world (cosmos) as limited to the Eurasian-African contiguous land mass. And even the inhabited world (oikoumenes) could stretch to fit.

What the Bible has no warrant for is extraterrestrial nation-states and civilizations. If you want more details, see my article on extraterrestrial life.--TerryH^Talk 12:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)