• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Actually, the intelligence has been here a long time. You're referring to technological intelligence. Not the same things, exactly. Unfortunately, we have no way of detecting intelligence out there. And we can only very minimally detect technical intelligence if it's out there. We are certainly "newbies". But the Earth is not an old planet. And the moment (in cosmic time) the Earth was physically able to support life, it happened. And the moment it happened, it became conscious. Now, by "moment" we're talking a very long time by our standards, but not long at all by cosmic standards. It gives the impression that both life and conscious self/other awareness occur quickly and easily.

Not only that, there is a viable theory that life was deposited here by objects and debris that came from somewhere else. Which if true, means it can spread through space. Also, the only life we know of is based on a set of chemical interactions that may not be the ONLY means of creating dynamic, self-motivating expressions of intelligence. Or perhaps life forms have occurred using the "left-handed" version of the "right-handed" molecules that make up life as we know it.

Which is why I'm more interested in the concept and possibilities of consciousness and self/other awareness than I am in looking for or asking if it's biochemically "alive" out there.
You might have a strange definition of intelligence, and how would we detect aliens if it was not for some sort of "technological intelligence" on their part.

As far as "technological intelligence" then you are have to add at least two more 9's to the percentage of time without intelligent life on this planet.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
I disagree with the hypotheses made here.
if evolution is true,
and the earth not being the first in the expansion of the singularity,
There are a large number of other planets, solar systems, galaxies ahead of us (trillions of them in fact),
There has to be intelligent life elsewhere.
As I said before, NASA clearly believe this because they continue to search for it.
I am certain that as I have said, since all of these other trillions of planets have already passed our point in the expansion,
If they did evolve as claimed by humanistic science,
They should have also sent signals that we could detect.

The mere fact we haven't found them is attesting to the Biblical narrative. Clearly we are the only fallen world.

It is absurd to make the claim evolution follows a particular repeatable method and then turn around and cough up the nonesense that "oh but maybe they didn't evolve beyond non intelligent life". Really? You honestly believe such tripe?
What that really proves is that the entire evolutionary view is complete rubbish...it's a copout for those who can't bring themselves to believe in a creator God!
As soon as problems arise in the theory, the excuses given to explain the problem become so untenable they are an insult to the intelligence we have been given by our creator.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I disagree with the hypotheses made here.
if evolution is true,
and the earth not being the first in the expansion of the singularity,
There are a large number of other planets, solar systems, galaxies ahead of us (trillions of them in fact),
There has to be intelligent life elsewhere.
As I said before, NASA clearly believe this because they continue to search for it.
I am certain that as I have said, since all of these other trillions of planets have already passed our point in the expansion,
If they did evolve as claimed by humanistic science,
They should have also sent signals that we could detect.

The mere fact we haven't found them is attesting to the Biblical narrative. Clearly we are the only fallen world.

It is absurd to make the claim evolution follows a particular repeatable method and then turn around and cough up the nonesense that "oh but maybe they didn't evolve beyond non intelligent life". Really? You honestly believe such tripe?
What that really proves is that the entire evolutionary view is complete rubbish...it's a copout for those who can't bring themselves to believe in a creator God!
As soon as problems arise in the theory, the excuses given to explain the problem become so untenable they are an insult to the intelligence we have been given by our creator.
What makes you think that they could send signals that we could detect? How and why would they do that?

And no, we know that life is the product of evolution. Why not find one of the threads on evolution and start a discussion there? Why do you oppose reality?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I disagree with the hypotheses made here.
if evolution is true,
and the earth not being the first in the expansion of the singularity,
There are a large number of other planets, solar systems, galaxies ahead of us (trillions of them in fact),
There has to be intelligent life elsewhere.
As I said before, NASA clearly believe this because they continue to search for it.
I am certain that as I have said, since all of these other trillions of planets have already passed our point in the expansion,
If they did evolve as claimed by humanistic science,
They should have also sent signals that we could detect.

The mere fact we haven't found them is attesting to the Biblical narrative. Clearly we are the only fallen world.

It is absurd to make the claim evolution follows a particular repeatable method and then turn around and cough up the nonesense that "oh but maybe they didn't evolve beyond non intelligent life". Really? You honestly believe such tripe?
What that really proves is that the entire evolutionary view is complete rubbish...it's a copout for those who can't bring themselves to believe in a creator God!
As soon as problems arise in the theory, the excuses given to explain the problem become so untenable they are an insult to the intelligence we have been given by our creator.
What is amusing is that all that you have uttered is an insult to intelligence - and merely because you happen to believe the unproven writings from a few thousand years ago. :oops:
 

PureX

Veteran Member
It is absurd to make the claim evolution follows a particular repeatable method and then turn around and cough up the nonesense that "oh but maybe they didn't evolve beyond non intelligent life". Really? You honestly believe such tripe?
People can believe whatever they like, just as you are doing. Because the fact is that we don't know if, or what kind, or how intelligent 'life' may exist in the universe. There is a great deal we don't know. There is a great deal YOU don't know. So all that arrogant bluster is very premature.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
People can believe whatever they like, just as you are doing. Because the fact is that we don't know if, or what kind, or how intelligent 'life' may exist in the universe. There is a great deal we don't know. There is a great deal YOU don't know. So all that arrogant bluster is very premature.
And that is exactly my point, there is one book that very definately makes the claim it does know. That book is the Bible...a book with more than 4500 years of archeologically and even geologically proven history to go with.

Even the fact humanists tend to follow the big bang model supports the Bible narrative that everything began with God. With the exception of the humanism timeframe, the idea of a big bang aligns perfectly with the biblical narrative.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
15th Century: "I'm sorry, you think there is some "New World" out there containing whole other continents? Despite no evidence? And you want to....sail there, for months and years on end? And try to live there? Ugh, how stupid. It's obviously just another part of India."

16th Century: "I'm sorry, you think the Earth orbits the Sun? I mean how stupid do you have to be to believe such nonsense? I mean just look up! Do people not have common sense anymore? Why are we spending time even talking about this, we have bigger problems than worrying about the planets and stars."
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Correct its not with science. Or at least only slightly. Though what i know of morilty, and i am atheist, i would pit morality against the majority of Christians (and orher religious) that i know. And come out on top. Religious morality to me is pretty low on the scale
When you say, " pretty low on the scale " that reminded me of an old Dick Cavat interview show. Late 70's or early 80's.
One guest, to my surprise, said society needs to change in order for it to work, and the path society is on will continue to go down scale because there is No way to enforce the Golden Rule.
Embodied in that Golden Rule is what is considered as: godly wisdom.
In other words, live by having 'godly love' and we would find an absence of immorality (porneia) bad side effects.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
...............Because the fact is that we don't know if, or what kind, or how intelligent 'life' may exist in the universe. There is a great deal we don't know.....................

True, there is still a lot we don't know, but we do know in the Bible the sin/death issue started here on Earth.
If there was intelligent life elsewhere that would prove the 'sin/death' issue was already settled elsewhere.
Known science/ technology is supposed to transform our world, but technology comes with side effects often bad.
In other words, we find good comes with negative drawbacks:
for example: Atomic energy / Atomic bombs ( weapons of mass destruction )
Science nor technology can protect against bad consequences, including family breakdown.
The misuse of science and technology harms tomorrow for us.
So, without love of God, godly wisdom in the picture there is No keeping of the Golden Rule.
No law can enforce the Golden Rule or Jesus' New commandment (John 13:34-35) to love others as he does.
If life elsewhere: where would morality come from or how would society survive without morality ____________
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The mere fact we haven't found them is attesting to the Biblical narrative. Clearly we are the only fallen world.

It is absurd to make the claim evolution follows a particular repeatable method and then turn around and cough up the nonesense that "oh but maybe they didn't evolve beyond non intelligent life". Really? You honestly believe such tripe?
What that really proves is that the entire evolutionary view is complete rubbish...it's a copout for those who can't bring themselves to believe in a creator God!
As soon as problems arise in the theory, the excuses given to explain the problem become so untenable they are an insult to the intelligence we have been given by our creator.

What is really insult to intelligence, is believing in less than 3000 year-old book (Genesis), where human - fully grown man - can magically come into existence from dust on the ground, just by breathing life into dust-made nostrils (2:7):

“Genesis 2:7” said:
7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

That’s the real insult. To believe in “God did it” superstition. To believe in the supernatural, like magic, where lifeless dust can transform into living cells.

Genesis is based on the Babylonian creation myth of the gods creating humans straight from the Earth (clay),

...either using water from the primeval ocean (called Abzu in Sumerian or Aspu in Old Babylonian), eg the 21st century BCE Sumerian Enki and Ninmah, Enlil and the Hoe,

...or from using the blood of sacrificed god (Geshtu-E, the god of intelligence), like 17th century BCE Old Babylonian narrative, eg Epic of Atrahasis.​

Like these older stories from Mesopotamia, Genesis relied on superstition and the belief in supernatural for creating human.

Whether from lifeless dust (eg silt soil) or from lifeless clay, neither of these can magically turn into living cells of any human being.

Today, we have understanding of cells, and cells are not made of dust or soil (eg silt, clay). Both silt and clay are made of weathered minerals from rocks, from different types of silicates, SiO (eg micas, feldspars, quartz).

If Genesis Adam was made from the dust of the Earth, meaning soil, then some trace evidence of these silicates should exist in our cells, today, but there are not even single silicate.

What exist in every cells of every known organisms on Earth, from unicellular organisms (microorganisms) of Bacteria and Archaea, or multicellular organisms of Fungi, Plantae and Animalia, are three important biological molecules or compounds:
  1. Proteins, which are made of amino acids
  2. Nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA)
  3. Carbohydrates (eg energy sources, like sugars or starch, etc, or sugars of ribose in RNA and deoxyribose in DNA.
The fourth fundamental molecule in cell would be lipids (which are made from fatty acids or carboxylic acids.

We are made from these organic materials or chemical compounds (proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and lipids) exist in every known types of cells, none of these cells contain any types of silicates that exist in soil.

And btw, AdamjEdgar, Evolution is only focused on the biodiversity of life, changes to the populations of organisms, the mechanisms of changes through Natural Selection, Genetic Drift or Mutations. So life would have to already to exist, to pass genetic traits from ancestors to descendants.

Evolution isn’t about the origin of first life. If you really wanted to talk about origin of life, then your post should have focused on Abiogenesis, not on Evolution.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
When you say, " pretty low on the scale " that reminded me of an old Dick Cavat interview show. Late 70's or early 80's.
One guest, to my surprise, said society needs to change in order for it to work, and the path society is on will continue to go down scale because there is No way to enforce the Golden Rule.
Embodied in that Golden Rule is what is considered as: godly wisdom.
In other words, live by having 'godly love' and we would find an absence of immorality (porneia) bad side effects.

I have no god and don't need one to tell me how to do the right thing.

It is my belief no one 'needs' a god, what they need is to learn some humanity.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
So what is your evidence for the right thing or is it a belief, but not a religious one?

I live it every day, truly anecdotal evidence.

And i have never had a non believer try to kill my children or me. I have never had a non believer mock my disability, i have never had a non believer rape me.

I wish i could say the same about Christians

There are of course myriad other evidences in life that show abject hypocrisy to to teaching of holy scriptures.
For example, I've never flown a plain into a building or gone to war for the sake of a god.





I wish i
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I live it every day, truly anecdotal evidence.

And i have never had a non believer try to kill my children or me. I have never had a non believer mock my disability, i have never had a non believer rape me.

I wish i could say the same about Christians

There are of course myriad other evidences in life that show abject hypocrisy to to teaching of holy scriptures.
For example, I've never flown a plain into a building or gone to war for the sake of a god.





I wish i

Yeah, you are your belief system. So am I. I have never been hurt due to religion, yet I have been hurt.
When I then try to understand what a non-believer is as far as I can tell it is a believer without standard theistic beliefs, yet still with beliefs and some of these non-theistic beliefs can still hurt other humans.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yeah, you are your belief system. So am I. I have never been hurt due to religion, yet I have been hurt.
When I then try to understand what a non-believer is as far as I can tell it is a believer without standard theistic beliefs, yet still with beliefs and some of these non-theistic beliefs can still hurt other humans.

everyone believes if something even if it's belief that the shop will have milk on the shelves if they run out.

The term non believer in the theistic sense is non believef in a god, nothing more nothing less
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
everyone believes if something even if it's belief that the shop will have milk on the shelves if they run out.

The term non believer in the theistic sense is non believef in a god, nothing more nothing less

Well, theists are not the only humans, who hurt other humans.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Well, theists are not the only humans, who hurt other humans.

Non theists don't often blow up city centres or fly planes into buildings they don't go to war in the name of their god, they don't murder because the victims belief is different ... Etc. Etc. Etc.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Non theists don't often blow up city centres or fly planes into buildings they don't go to war in the name of god, they don't murder because the victims belief is different ... Etc. Etc. Etc.
Non-theists do all that and far worse in the name of greed, bloodlust, and power, though.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Non-theists do all that and far worse in the name of greed, bloodlust, and power, though.

Evidence please.
I'll wait.

As i said "don't often"

I cannot remember the last time a non theists flew a plane into a building or blew up a city centre
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Non theists don't often blow up city centres or fly planes into buildings they don't go to war in the name of their god, they don't murder because the victims belief is different ... Etc. Etc. Etc.

No, they do what in sociology is called the little everyday evil and thus still hurt people. The problem is that for someone like me in a functional secular society, the majority of hurting has nothing to do with religion.
In other words, it doesn't follow that the world would be a better place if we removed the theists. That is my point.
 
Top