# Ultimate Purpose of Space Shuttle Program?



## heartoflesh (Aug 4, 2005)

Is it just me or does it seems like a colossal waste of money to send a space shuttle into orbit to "practice" repairing tiles or so some guy can go on a space walk? What is the ultimate purpose here? Do we do it just so we can say we can do it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm way into the Mars research we've done and I find it fascinating. Even if the researchers end up disappointed (because no water/life has been found) I still think it's incredible to look at those photos that are sent back from the red planet. 

Still, I just don't understand the ultimate purpose of our shuttle program. Could someone more enlightened than me enlighten me?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 4, 2005)

good ole fascism. :bigsmile:
i don't think one can put a tag price on the knowledge that we've gained of the Universe that was directly correlated to our Space Program.

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 4, 2005)

Someone told me that the space shuttle runs on unleaded gasoline.......


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> i don't think one can put a tag price on the knowledge that we've gained from the Universe.



I agree with you, but my question then is: what else are we learning about the universe from the space shuttle program at this point? Unless I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I just don't understand the ultimate purpose of our shuttle program. Could someone more enlightened than me enlighten me?



I am 100% in support of the Space program. But I do understand your question. I have put some thought into it, and I believe there is a good answer.

I am in support of the Space program for the same reason I would have supported the colonization of the "New World" (the Americas) 500 years ago.

I believe Mars is the next great frontier for mankind. (And I'm not talking nonsense about "little green men", or anything like that.) Based on reading I have done, I believe that the technology exists to terraform Mars and make it inhabitable for humans. Of course, that would take several hundred years, but I'm postmillenial, so I figure we have time! 

The more goals we achieve in space, the closer we get to being able to make the next great step: a manned mission to Mars.

If you are seriously interested in considering such an answer to your question, I highly recommend "The Case for Mars" by Dr. Robert Zubrin:







The Case for Mars


10,000 years from now, I believe Earth will only be one of multiple planets inhabited by humans. The "frontier" used to be far-off continents. Now the frontier is nearby planets.

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 4, 2005)

The technology used to get a shuttle in space trickles down to us in the form of plastics, computer tech, manufacturing, medical, defense etc... (I couldnt prove this in every instance of course... just a hunch)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> The technology used to get a shuttle in space trickles down to us in the form of plastics, computer tech, manufacturing, medical, defense etc... (I couldnt prove this in every instance of course... just a hunch)




Quite true! There are a huge number of "everyday" products we wouldn't have if it weren't for NASA.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 4, 2005)

I am indeed in favor of the Space program in general, especially the Mars research we've done. My perplexity is specifically about the Shuttle program, and what the end goal is for this program.


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 4, 2005)

One possible answer is: Ego-Pride for USA vs USSR Former Soviet Republic - Space race... although now it would be to stay on top of other countries such as China. 

Second possible answer: Existing infrastructure with well connected lobby group to maintain jobs for many educated elites.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 4, 2005)

"Ultimate Purpose of Space Shuttle Program?" = cool ride.
245,000 parts all moving in synchronus motion at the same time (made in Taiwan of course).


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_








The Case for Mars
[/quote]


This sounds really interesting. Thanks for the link.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I am indeed in favor of the Space program in general, especially the Mars research we've done. My perplexity is specifically about the Shuttle program, and what the end goal is for this program.



Ok, I understand.

Check out Zubrin's book. He talks about a way to use *current* shuttle technology to get us to Mars. Great stuff!!!

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> "Ultimate Purpose of Space Shuttle Program?" = cool ride.
> 245,000 parts all moving in synchronus motion at the same time (made in Taiwan of course).


----------



## JohnV (Aug 4, 2005)

Sometimes I don't get it: we can send men to the moon, and even have a catastophy like Apollo 13 and yet get them back home, but it seems to be getting harder just to send a shuttle into space, or at least to get it home with some confidence. Sometimes I ask, "Why don't they just turn the shuttle around?", to solve the heatshield problems. But you don't hang those big boosters on the hinges of those big doors. So make sliding doors like the Montana minivan. But then they need some other way to collect solar energy. So put it on the wings? Won't work, because that will be damaged at lift-off. 

Why is it so hard? We need Flash Gordon back.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 4, 2005)

I wish they'd redirect all that brain-power and money into cancer research.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 4, 2005)

I think most scientists are of the opinion that the space shuttle and the International Space Station are a poor use of science funding. The small amount of return is not worth the cost. The future of space exploration is what we've seen with the Mars rovers. Let's face it, the primary reason to put a man on Mars is because it would be really exciting.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> The small amount of return is not worth the cost. The future of space exploration is what we've seen with the Mars rovers. Let's face it, the primary reason to put a man on Mars is because it would be really exciting.



I completely disagree with you. The future of the human race may be on Mars. Have you studied terraforming? Mars is the next great frontier. We will colonize that planet just like we colonized North and South America. There appear to be numerous natural resources on Mars that can be tapped. We will build a civilization there! Just give us a thousand years or so! (and assume we don't blow ourselves up with nukes in the meantime and set ourselves back a millennium or two. . . . )


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by New wine skin_
> ...



 Don't forget Tang!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 5, 2005)

Its a Boondoggle.

I don't mind being a minority on this one. I'm a consistent anti-statist, and no self-respecting, liberty-loving conservative likes an elitist, wasteful government program, no matter how hard the sell. The big-ticket programs (like the shuttle and ISS) are whopping ex$$$pen$ive PR campaigns, that keep the cash flowing to the less glamorous (but still costly) parts, including a hefty bureaucratic apparatus.

All govt. programs like to take as much credit as they can for all kinds of "progress" and "discoveries". It helps justify and perpetuate them. So, if a connection can be made between a "space" experiment and anything, I mean anything!, down on Terra Firma, you can bet it's made its way into the promotional literature, no matter how far-fetched. That's just survival and human nature among the bureaucracies, wolves squabbling over how to divy up the mutton.

It's also fallacious to argue that without the space program, valuable discoveries would not have been made. True, some specific discoveries might not have been made, or made in the same way, or in the same time. But arguing that because it happened a certain way, therefore we must be better off is bad logic. Maybe we would have been better off if all the TAX money poured into visits to dead, barren spaceballs (lots of evolutionary perspective driving these trains too) had been put to other uses. Better still, private uses.

Its a variation on the "broken window" fallacy--the idea that catastrophes, wars, and riots are really quite excellent for people (collectives) and economies because they keep glaziers gainfully employed. Of course, that money to repair the window had to be diverted from other useful work. And the tailor goes broke because the money that would have paid for that new suit now went to the glass factory and the glaziers. Net losses are net losses. Otherwise we should just destroy everything in sight, so we can have full employment, right? Same is true with the space program.

And I'm no defender of mercantilism in any form, but the idea that governments were largely responsible for the New World "discovery" (which itself is propaganda history) and development is also fictional. For one thing the governments couldn't afford it. Kings and princes, often more in their capacities as "public" persons, accorded supposed limited "rights" to certain people, along with some small change--and expected a big payoff at the end to recoup their investments. Later, governments (seeing windfalls for the princes) used the same power (this time with public monies) to secure cash-flow (and personal fortunes). Yes, human nature was alive and well then too.

Meanwhile, private individuals and companies raced across the seas, and plunged into the interior of the continent to blaze trails and seek fortune. And thousands more flocked to places (on their own dime) promising land for the taking (and farming). What did the governments do? Fought each other for control of the wealth, particularly in the form of taxes (direct of indirect). What did American's fight the British over? "Eating out our substance," among other things. To pay for her wars and colonial adventures. Just like the "glory" of the space progam.

"Thanks but no thanks for the Red-coats (and Hessian mercenaries), K.G. We'd like a little representation with our taxation please, or we'll go our own way." "Give me liberty!"--Patrick Henry. Let Bill Gates fund his own personal space program, and reap the profits (or eat the loss).


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> And I'm no defender of mercantilism in any form, but the idea that governments were largely responsible for the New World "discovery" (which itself is propaganda history) and development is also fictional. For one thing the governments couldn't afford it. Kings and princes, often more in their capacities as "public" persons, accorded supposed limited "rights" to certain people, along with some small change--and expected a big payoff at the end to recoup their investments. Later, governments (seeing windfalls for the princes) used the same power (this time with public monies) to secure cash-flow (and personal fortunes). Yes, human nature was alive and well then too.
> 
> ...




I don't really have a problem with what you've said here.

However, I do want to make sure I divide your statements into two important, seperate issues:

Question #1: Should we go into space, colonize Mars, etc. ?
Question #2: Should the government be the one to get us there, using our tax dollars?

It sounds to me like you and I may both agree on #1. Should we go into space? Certainly! It is the next great frontier.

At the same time, I fully agree with you that our government is probably not the most efficient at _anything_, including space exploration. 

So, I would be very much in favor of private companies and rich individuals funding private space programs, rather than letting NASA monopolize the field. Thumbs up to that idea! 

And you know what? Dr. Robert Zubrin would agree with us! In his book, A Case for Mars, he discusses the possibility of space exploration by private corporations.

Check out his book! I love it!


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 5, 2005)

If the real reason for space exploration, and more specifically Mars research and the space shuttle program, is colonization and $$$, then I agree that this will be accomplished by private companies, and not by big govt. The problem as I see it right now then is that the whole subject is tainted by a utopian and humanistic "exploring the galaxies..." mentality instead of pragmatic and down to earth (or Mars?) goals.

I never hear about what the big purpose is behind anything with NASA. It seems like it's all about trying to find signs of water, signs of life, etc., but never about what other natural resources are being discovered and how they can be applied practically speaking. Maybe this does indeed happen and is talked about, and is explored, but we certainly never hear about it, at least in the mainstream press. 

To boil down what I'm trying to say in the form of a question: Does the focus need to switch from mere exploration to "what do we really want to do here"? Furthermore, don't you feel the public needs to be given more information on why we are doing what we're doing? I mean, how many others are there out there like me who just read about the space shuttle going up to repair a few tiles and wonder... and why???


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> If the real reason for space exploration, and more specifically Mars research and the space shuttle program, is colonization and $$$, then I agree that this will be accomplished by private companies, and not by big govt. The problem as I see it right now then is that the whole subject is tainted by a utopian and humanistic "exploring the galaxies..." mentality instead of pragmatic and down to earth (or Mars?) goals.
> 
> <snip>
> ...






I'm with you, brother!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 5, 2005)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NASA use the shuttle for the deployment of spy satelllites as well as scientific research? Aren't there national security purposes behind the shuttle program as well as the goal of exploration, etc.?

It seems to me that it was the Cold War that sparked the race to space, and from that perspective, I see why government has taken the lead in space exploration and technology rather than private industry.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I wish they'd redirect all that brain-power and money into cancer research.



I have heard that they have a cure for cancer but won't release it.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Aug 5, 2005)

Ok...

How does the idea of populating Mars, etc. square with the Genesis mandate to subdue THE EARTH?

Will God bless such an endeavor...or is it an overreach on man's part? ...especially since there is still so much about our own planet that we are clueless about.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 5, 2005)

Space: The Free-Market Frontier


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 5, 2005)

Our U.S. government space program is backwards-- we haven't made any significant advances in aeronautics in the space program in two decades. I agree-- it does seem like a waste of money. Government doesn't always do things with rational economic considerations in mind. In the Cold War, it was about prestige and being the dominant superpower. The space station research seems superflous and useless at times.

In 1995, I read an interesting book entitled The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps, and it offers an overview of man's supposed exodus into the stars. It predicts colonization of the oceans and exploitation of its vast resources before Mars colonization comes.

In property law, at my _Christian_ law school, we briefly glossed over the dominion mandate, and Genesis clearly says, man has no dominion over the bowels of the ocean or in the heavens, just the terrestrial earth. Do us curmudgeon Christians reject the idea of ocean and space colonization? Obviously, it's not technologically and economically viable in our time.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 5, 2005)

Matt,
there is a natural cure but most are not interested. 

As far as the space program I think its usefull if done right. Its helps us explore our own planet from a different point of view. To study the sun for incoming solar flares which cause harm to us and beauty with northrn lights. 

It also helps study inbound NEO's that disrupt our magnetic field and trigger storms, EQ's, and volcanic activety. I would be least worried about money going to a space program then money going to foreign tyrants like israel, palkestine, iraq, and iran. Or for the tax money going to big business's and towards murdering people and globalizing the planet with the american way. Or more concerned with energy bill just passed that at the last moment slipped in a 1.5 billion dollar bonus for big oil companies. We could use that money developing better energy resources than using oil which was meant to be lubricant for the joints of the earth like for a car. 

Blade


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 5, 2005)

One small step for man -- one giant leap for Dixie!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 5, 2005)




----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 5, 2005)

This site is imaginative, if not informative ...

Terraforming


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 5, 2005)

I just hope then when e go to anew planet mars or anywhere we are wise in our use of its natural resources. and dont drill ourselves to death.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 6, 2005)

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NASA use the shuttle for the deployment of spy satelllites as well as scientific research? Aren't there national security purposes behind the shuttle program as well as the goal of exploration, etc.?"

Unmanned rockets do the same thing all the time.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 19, 2005)

*THIS TODAY...*

Arthur I. Cyr: Mars could bring us closer 
Arthur I. Cyr, Scripps Howard News Service 
August 19, 2005 CYR0819 



On Sunday, a Russian rocket based in Kazakhstan successfully launched an American space satellite. The powerful Soyuz-FG rocket reflects Communist initiative in the old Soviet Union. The two-ton Galaxy 14 satellite is a capitalist tool built by Orbital Satellites Corp. for PanAmSat Holding Corp.

Meanwhile, little land rover Opportunity just keeps chugging along over the surface of Mars, 14 months after landing. For a time the vehicle was stalled, wheels buried in a sand dune. But engineers on Earth, 100 million miles away, were able to maneuver Opportunity out of the mire.

Vice President Spiro Agnew used to make headlines by complaining loudly that good news gets underreported. These examples retrospectively bolster his bombast. Neither has received priority play in the media.

That may change, and relatively soon, especially in regard to Mars. President Bush is making distant space flight a much higher national priority again, to include a manned mission to Mars. Bush has not yet made a highly dramatic public announcement, along the lines of President John Kennedy's enunciation of a manned mission to the moon. NASA, however, has been directed to plan for Mars.

Space flight generates far less public excitement than in JFK's time, in part because we are collectively much more cautious. That attitude is well represented by the now-constant concern over safety of the shuttle flights.

Yet space flight is inherently unpredictable as well as risky. A shuttle flight stays relatively close to Earth, but two crews have been lost. The only casualties of the moon program were one brave crew incinerated in their capsule while still on Earth.

There are two very good reasons for pursuing the Mars mission. First, while the initial space program was fueled by the fixations and fears of the Cold War, this one could be defined by global cooperation.

Science has always held an olive branch. During the height of the Cold War, President Dwight Eisenhower fostered exchange between scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain. In the late 1950s, science cooperation during the International Geophysical Year was leveraged by Ike into demilitarization of Antarctica, the first significant arms agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.

This time around, Sino-American relations could be furthered by cooperation to get to Mars. Wider multiculturalism also beckons.

Second, space exploration has driven technological advance, spawning consumer goods along with research tools. Extreme miniaturization of components for the moon mission in turn expanded applications for the computer microchip and other high-tech devices.

The personal computer is one of the most important by-products. The small inexpensive computer permits the pervasive information flows that we now take for granted. Whatever your partisan perspective, whenever you turn on a personal computer, you are saying hello to JFK.

Arthur I. Cyr, professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and the author of "After the Cold War," wrote this article for Scripps Howard News Service.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 19, 2005)

*Call me unscientific if you want to....*

But I consider the space program to be a veiled, and sometimes unveiled attempt to disprove the existence of God.

Further, God didn't create life on Mars, so I really do not think He's going to allow men to settle there.

There is a reason the earth is the way it is, and I believe it is so connected to redemptive history that God will never allow the technology to advance so that man can transplant his sin from one planet to another.

And, as for the scientific discoveries, I cast my vote of doubt about this as well. Much of their discoveries is in the way of mathematics not observation. They think, therefore, it is.

If God can create a universe in such a way as to give rock the appearance of long ages, then He can most certainly turn our looks into the night sky into mirages of vastness. The presuppositions of the space program begin with no God, therefore, He will continue to confound those who supress the truth in unrighteousness.

I think Genesis must be taken into account when we speculate the space program and inhabiting other planets. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean that God will allow it, nor that man should attempt it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 19, 2005)

The funny thing is Kevin, your avatar suggests an inclination towards extra-terrestrial exploration.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> The funny thing is Kevin, your avatar suggests an inclination towards extra-terrestrial exploration.



 

Star Trek 

Genesis Project


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 19, 2005)




----------



## kceaster (Aug 19, 2005)

Yeah, that is funny. I love science fiction, but I always have to remember the second word of that genre, fiction.

KC


----------



## Peter (Aug 19, 2005)

At first my sentiments were similar to Kevins, however, after reading some earlier post I think I've changed my mind on this. As a postmillennialist who believes the millennium will possibly last up to 360,000 years (utilizing the 1 day=1 year principle Ezek 4:6) and believing people will live possibly up to 1000 years old (Gen 9:29; Isa 65:20) space settlement seems necessary.


----------



## andreas (Aug 20, 2005)

Not our problem.God 's problem.


----------



## just_grace (Aug 20, 2005)

*Futility...*

I think the idea of colonising other planets etc is futile. Although they are not aware of it 

The use and installation of satellites etc are great, communications like telephone and Internet and I suppose TV are are great.

Richard Branson hopes soon to offer space trips for around 200,000 pounds Stirling.

I do not even like airplanes, I went to Egypt last year and hated the flight, it was my first and last time.

As to loss of life, its very sad.

NASA = NEED ANOTHER SEVEN ASTRONAUTS


----------



## SRoper (Aug 20, 2005)

This issue of _IEEE Spectrum_ has its feature article about the space elevator concept. I guess with the continual developments in carbon nanotubes the idea is starting to get some legitimacy beyond the pages of _Popular Science_. For those who don't know the space elevator is a staple of science fiction. The idea is that one strings a 100,000 km ribbon from a counterweight in orbit to the surface of the earth. Then a motorized elevator car can climb the cable and deploy its cargo at the desired orbit. At an estimated 10 billion dollars it sounds like a bargin when compared to NASA's 15 billion dollar annual budget. The benefits are a hundred-fold decrease in the cost of shipping cargo to space and a far more ecological means of achieving orbit.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 20, 2005)

I don't see us EVER colonizing another planet. Even if it were possible (ie Mars), the cautions needed withing such a hostile atmosphere outweigh the benefits of attempting colonization.

Star Trek (much as I enjoy it) is unrealistic when confronted with the laws of physics and nature.

I don't see the space program as a means to disprove the existence of God, even though some may use it to do so. In fact, their findings have done nothing but prove the existence of a creator.


----------



## just_grace (Aug 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I don't see us EVER colonizing another planet. Even if it were possible (ie Mars), the cautions needed withing such a hostile atmosphere outweigh the benefits of attempting colonization.
> 
> Star Trek (much as I enjoy it) is unrealistic when confronted with the laws of physics and nature.
> ...



Amen, its obvious that all is designed, therefore there must be a Designer, cannot see a chimp writing a computer program or writing a book about his/her life, we are created in the image of God, the CREATOR.


----------



## Peter (Aug 20, 2005)

If you're a postmill how do you take the argument for the necessity of extra-terrestrial colonization?

[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 20, 2005)

How about we seperate NASA from the theory of space colonization for a minute. Since NASA a USA funded program with failures seem's to blind us from the real issue Space Colonization. 

If we can turn land here on earth into a place to live from nothing. Then why is that any different from doing it on mars?

If you look at how much population growth and consumption of natural resources and land. Their is an eventual need for terraforming. or even colonizing satalites.

Blade


----------



## Peter (Aug 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> How about we seperate NASA from the theory of space colonization for a minute. Since NASA a USA funded program with failures seem's to blind us from the real issue Space Colonization.
> 
> If we can turn land here on earth into a place to live from nothing. Then why is that any different from doing it on mars?
> ...



 I would favor the privatization of the space program though I can't think of any short term incentive for a private corporation.

*"If you look at how much population growth and consumption of natural resources and land. Their is an eventual need for terraforming. or even colonizing satalites."*

 esp. if you grant my presuppositions: if the millennium will be 360,000 years and people will live up to 1000 years old the earth alone will not have the capacity to sustain the human population


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 20, 2005)

"To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before For Christ's Crown and Covenant"

Blade


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 21, 2005)

You two gents are comparing apples with oranges. You can take barren land here and use it as we have the resources around us to do so. On mars, I'm not even talking about agriculture...but the 1)lack of water and 2)the hostile atmosphere--not being able to go outside except in a spacesuit? Sorry, but I stick by my statement. The costs and risks of attempted survival makes the mere idea of colonization impractical.

I didn't understand what was meant by the "post-mil" quote. I don't see what post mil has anything to do with it...unless you believe that we will eventually out populate the earth? I can oust that misconception right now. Study history. Population has always fluxuated. Just as the earth warms and cools and warms again. When we have warmer climate and thus population growth, we also end up with growth of disease thus cutting back the population again. Between that, natural disasters, and war I don't believe we will ever "overpopulate" the earth.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 21, 2005)

What about the risks of pilgrims coming to america? or the Jews following God into Egypt? or Abraham's journey?

blade


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> "To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before For Christ's Crown and Covenant"
> 
> Blade


----------



## Peter (Aug 21, 2005)

Yes, of course we will out populate the earth. Its the nature of the millennium that natural disasters will be sparse (reversal of the curse) and swords will be beaten into plowshares.


----------



## Peter (Aug 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> "To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before For Christ's Crown and Covenant"
> 
> Blade


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> What about the risks of pilgrims coming to america? or the Jews following God into Egypt? or Abraham's journey?
> 
> blade



Journey of the Mayflower to the New World

[Edited on 8-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Peter (Aug 21, 2005)

History of the World Part III...

Puritans in Space!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 21, 2005)




----------



## SRoper (Aug 21, 2005)

You guys make postmil sound really fun.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Yes, of course we will out populate the earth. Its the nature of the millennium that natural disasters will be sparse (reversal of the curse) and swords will be beaten into plowshares.



I'm not going to go further on this one with you because A) I believe postmils vary on issues B) I still haven't had any complete explainations on order of postmil events C) I don't believe God created us to out populated that home that he's made for us.

For bladestunner...again you are comparing travel and settlement within a breathable environment to one that is not.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 21, 2005)

Ladyflynt,
Thats why we adapt by terraforming. Just because the eskimos had to have fur coats on all the time to live in the harsh cold of the great north does not mean we shouldnt live there. 

If the air is not yet breathable then we will make it breathable. If we can get vegatation going and harvest trees. They will breath in unwanted harsh air and breath out oxygen. 

All things are possible with the Lord. he will provide for His people.

Blade


----------



## Peter (Aug 21, 2005)

Do you honestly believe there will be war in a world converted by the gospel?

How do you expect the earth to sustain the entire human population when mothers have 5 kids by 30 years old?

I don't believe God will let us out populate the home he's given us either, thats why he's given us the heavens and put us in dominion over them through Christ Psalm 8.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 21, 2005)

Yeah I'd like to see some more on this earth=home argument. I don't understand why it can't as easilly be solar system=home or galaxy=home.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 21, 2005)

Peter, you are making great presumption upon me. Where did I ever state that I was a postmillinialist? My point is that I am not yet convinced of such. However, I am neither throwing it out. I'm currently learning WHAT postmil is.


----------



## Peter (Aug 21, 2005)

Through out the discussion I've made that presupposition clear.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 21, 2005)

Yes, you have...and I am pointing out that you should never have made that assumption of a person. 

If all your statements are based upon that premise (that postmil is the correct stand), then you and I may or may not ever agree.

Even from a postmil presup, I at this current moment do not believe we will ever out populate the planet. I also do not believe we will ever practically colonize another planet. Look around you in nature. Fish cannot survive outside of water. And in an artificial environment they are dependant upon us to feed them. Sure, plant things on Mars. They won't grow. Except in an expensive and suseptible artificial environment. And then it would be limited. Ya'll are also taking out of consideration the distance of Mars from the Sun. If our earth were to move that far, we would not be able to exist.


----------



## Peter (Aug 21, 2005)

I never made an assumption of a person. I made an assumption of a proposition (postmill is true) and I was trying to carry on a conversation about the logical conclusions of that assumption (space settlement is necessary).


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 21, 2005)

okay...my bad (on the postmil part)

I just disagree with your conclusions on both logical and practical working grounds.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 22, 2005)

Still, though, that may be why Dutch people are mostlly Amil: its cheaper.:bigsmile:


----------



## kceaster (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> Yeah I'd like to see some more on this earth=home argument. I don't understand why it can't as easilly be solar system=home or galaxy=home.



One of the biggest reasons I can think of is because we are promised the return of Christ. How is He to return? In the same way He left.

Sorry folks, all of redemptive history will take place here on this planet. If we get too crowded, I would imagine that God will prune the plant - or planet, if you don't mind the pun.

Jesus is going to return to earth. There will be a new heavens and a new earth. God didn't say anything about Mars.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 22, 2005)




----------



## Peter (Aug 22, 2005)

> Jesus is going to return to earth. There will be a *new heavens* and a new earth. God didn't say anything about Mars.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 22, 2005)

Yeah, isn't Mars included in the heavens?


----------



## SRoper (Aug 22, 2005)

Furthermore, the way you are arguing it seems we would miss his return unless we were in Palestine. After all, that is where he departed from.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 22, 2005)

Everyone on Earth will know when Christ returns. If you're on Mars, my guess is, you'd miss it.

Besides there'll be other indications. Splitting of the eastern sky, trumpet sounds, dead in Christ will rise.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 22, 2005)

Ok but whose to say that after His return we dont colonize the universe and take dominion over it? 

So how do we deal with overpopulation now? Do we kill people off? What about depletion of natural resources? Eventually we will run out of oil? There are alternatives like wind and the sun but is the world ready to accept change? 


Blade


----------



## Peter (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Everyone on Earth will know when Christ returns. If you're on Mars, my guess is, you'd miss it.
> 
> Besides there'll be other indications. Splitting of the eastern sky, trumpet sounds, dead in Christ will rise.
> ...



You seriously think that a christian not on earth will miss out on the return of Christ? Would an unbeliever escape God's judgment by fleeing to outspace? Its futile trying to explain exactly what every detail of the 2nd coming and resurrection will be like, we simply don't know the particulars and can't with the limited data we have. So then trying to exclude those on other planets for factors we think are improbable doesnt work.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



No, I don't think anyone will miss out on Christ's return, which is why I believe that He's coming back to earth, the dead in Christ shall rise, and we who are alive will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. I think the Holy Spirit knows where this is going to take place, and if there were other planets involved, we would have known about it.

There is no defense of extra-terrestrial living according to the Scriptures. We were created here, we'll all be here when that creation comes to the end of the age.

It is God's universe, there is no doubt about that, but the Bible is pretty specific about the limit of mankind. If you claim that we'll live on other planets, we can't get that from Scripture. That means that Scripture has nothing to say about it. I choose not to go where Scripture does not go.

As for resources and world population, God is very capable of handling all those problems, in ways we probably don't want to think about. We can't believe that fossil fuels and energy are outside God's purview to provide. He provides what we have now, is there any reason to believe that God will not continue to uphold His creation?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Peter (Aug 22, 2005)

"It is God's universe, there is no doubt about that, but the Bible is pretty specific about the limit of mankind. If you claim that we'll live on other planets, we can't get that from Scripture. That means that Scripture has nothing to say about it. I choose not to go where Scripture does not go."

So you subscribe to some sort of regulative principle of residence? we can't live any where God has not commanded?

God has created all things and set man over *all* the works of his hands, including the heavens. PSALM 8.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 22, 2005)

Where does scripture mention the 63 moons of Jupiter? It doenst so I guess there are not 63 moons of Jupiter.

Blade


----------



## kceaster (Aug 22, 2005)

Guys,

I'll leave you to your science FICTION. I don't have enough faith to say that God'll let us live on other planets.

He commanded us to fill the earth, not fill the heavens. One of these days, we'll see who's right.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 22, 2005)

Well many thought that anything that said the earth wasnt Flat was fiction or that the Sun revolved aorund the earth as Fiction. But they were proven wrong. 

But at least your being polite 

blade


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 23, 2005)

Very few and very ignorant ppl believed the earth was flat. The public schools really hyped that one up.

Also, I've never seen in scripture where it states that God put man in charge of the heavens, only over all living living things that are on the earth.


----------



## Don (Aug 24, 2005)

I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel. 


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Don_
> I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel.
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix



I've read that before....which is why I stated that Extensive space exploration/colonization is impractical.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Sure, plant things on Mars. They won't grow. Except in an expensive and suseptible artificial environment. And then it would be limited.



Wrong.

There are already places on earth (the poles) which endure extreme temperatures, much like what you find on Mars. And there is ALREADY life there. 

Of course it would be silly to put an elephant or oak tree on Mars for starters. Rather, you would transplant Earth-life that would be immediately comfortable on Mars.

Then, over a period of many years, those life forms would multiply exponentially, and would change the atmosphere of Mars itself, converting CO2 into O2. With some oxygen in the atmosphere, there are even more life forms that would be able to exist there.

I am talking about a gradual change of the Martian environment itself. Of course if we dropped all of Earth's life onto Mars today, 99% of it would die, but not 100%! But no one would do that anyway. Rather, you gradually introduce life that can pioneer in those harsh conditions, and then let the life forms themselves change the face of Mars.

It's like what happens on new volcanic islands, only to a much greater degree. First, only a few simple life forms migrate to the island and are able to survive. But over centuries, the island itself is changed by the presence of life, and eventually, much more complex and advanced life forms can live there.

It is important to remember that there are some life forms on Earth that could live on Mars *today* without any "artificial environment" at all.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Don_
> ...



I am not impressed with that article. It certainly demonstrates that we don't have the technology _today_ to perform long-range manned trips throughout the universe. But that says nothing about future technology.

It is interesting to read what scientists had to say a century or two ago about the practicality of flight, rapid ground transportation, space travel of any kind, etc. The claims of impossibility and impracticality are very common until some bloke who doesn't listen to them just goes out and _does_ what everyone is calling impossible.

As someone once said, "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." 

A huge portion of our modern technology would have been good science-fiction material a century or two ago. (In fact, some of it was! Ever read Jules Verne?) Similarly, I have no doubt that the technology of a century or two in our future is beyond what we would currently even think possible.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 25, 2005)

*Joseph....*



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



You're kind of coming at this problem a bit terrestrially. First, while we would say things do grow in hostile environments on our planet, they are still on our planet. I was reading a few years ago about how delicate our water cycle is on this planet. If that water cycle were not as it is, life would not, could not exist. In fact our water cycle is aided by meteorites and other space objects that collide with our atmosphere constantly. This in turn keeps our water cycle going.

They are trying to prove that Mars has a similar, albeit, smaller type of atmosphere that would suggest a type of water cycle could be sustained, but not without intervention.

If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. To say that Mars could be another earth assumes that earth has been set in motion without the sustaining hand of God. Were God to remove His control over our planet, we would die instantly.

But if we breathe because of the good pleasure of God, He must sustain us by ensuring that the planet we live on is in good working order. And so He does. There is not one random molecule or atom or subatomic particle in the universe that our God does not say, "Do this."

Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so. Will He give men wisdom and intelligence so that they can artificially do so? Again, we cannot look at this in terms of the allowance of God, but the sustenance of God. Just because man builds it or discovers it or manipulates it, does not mean that God takes His hands off of it. There is no place in our universe God does not own and maintain.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Aug 25, 2005)

*Joseph...*



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



This is where science fiction does not help us. Have you ever seen the shows where people swear that they've seen crafts flying at extremely high speeds at area 51?

Two problems:

1. When they stop from this high speed, there is no correspondent reaction, which means that either Newton's 3rd law of motion is wrong, or they've found a way to build an inertial dampener (See Star Trek).

2. Even if they could stop that mass from moving, the objects inside the mass would be crushed by the G-forces. We do not have the technology at present that any electronic component would be able to withstand the pressure without some highly evolved environmental controls. (See Star Trek, again.)

What this article is saying is that technology does not set aside the laws of motion, pressure, atmosphere, etc. And even if an energy source is one day available for such things, we may not be able to endure the trip because our insides will become our outsides.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## gwine (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...





See this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

Many people deny the future because their imagination cannot conceive the impossible. Every new discovery is proof that the universe is stranger and more orderly than we could ever imagine.

I am glad God is the designer and creator. We would have either botched it up in a committee or drug it out for half of eternity until it would have been too expensive to do. :bigsmile:


----------



## CalsFarmer (Aug 25, 2005)

To boldly go where no man has gone before....


----------



## Don (Aug 25, 2005)

Biblelighthouse said, "It is important to remember that there are some life forms on Earth that could live on Mars *today* without any "artificial environment" at all."

Excuse my ignorance but what are these 'life forms' and how do we know that they can? Or is it just speculated?


----------



## gwine (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Biblelighthouse said, "It is important to remember that there are some life forms on Earth that could live on Mars *today* without any "artificial environment" at all."
> 
> Excuse my ignorance but what are these 'life forms' and how do we know that they can? Or is it just speculated?



Not exactly a dog but see this article:

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/surviving.asp

or 

http://www.unmuseum.org/marsrock.htm

I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to 'evolve' into something useful.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 25, 2005)

Well let the liberals and atheists control mars, our environment, our government, our schools, and our jobs. 

Christians should just stay in church and sit quitly. 

blade


----------



## SRoper (Aug 25, 2005)

"Excuse my ignorance but what are these 'life forms' and how do we know that they can? Or is it just speculated?"

It's speculation based on the the idea that there are many forms of life that survive on earth in more hostile environments than the best environments on Mars.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> You're kind of coming at this problem a bit terrestrially. First, while we would say things do grow in hostile environments on our planet, they are still on our planet. I was reading a few years ago about how delicate our water cycle is on this planet. If that water cycle were not as it is, life would not, could not exist.



You have been fed misinformation. There are life forms in the hearts of rocks, and in little microscopic drops of water trapped within ice, neither of which needs the water cycle to sustain life. And those two examples are just off the top of my head.

Of course there are life forms that do depend on the water cycle. But just remember that I never claimed Mars can *currently* support *all* forms of life. I just said that it can currently support *some* forms of life. Put some of Earth's hardiest microscopic life on Mars, and I doubt they'd even notice the difference.




> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. . . . Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so.



You've got to be kidding, Kevin. This is no different from the argument, "If God wanted men to fly, He would have given them wings." --- Do you think that airplanes are sinful, Kevin?

God did not create man with wings, but God did create man with the ability to seek out and find the laws of aerodynamics which are sovereignly administered by God.

God did not create man with ears like a fox, but God did create man with the ability to seek out and find the radio waves He created and administers, thus developing wireless telephones.

God did not create man with the built-in ability to traverse space and live on Mars. But I believe God did create man with the ability to seek out even more of God's sovereignly administered laws, to enable him to do so.

"Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who have pleasure in them." (Psalm 111:2)


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 25, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_



That can of worms, however, cannot live on Mars. The worms would freeze.


----------



## Peter (Aug 25, 2005)

I see the issue of terraforming as separate. It may or may not be possible to re-create earth on mars, im not sure I haven't read anything or studied the issue at all (Joe has read at least one book on the issue so I think he's better qualified to say then the rest of us). However, with present technology I do believe it is possible to create permanent human settlements in outerspace: in satellites, on the moon, eventually on other planets. We already have astronauts in space-stations for months at a time, how far away are we from having families living up there?


----------



## kceaster (Aug 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> I see the issue of terraforming as separate. It may or may not be possible to re-create earth on mars, im not sure I haven't read anything or studied the issue at all (Joe has read at least one book on the issue so I think he's better qualified to say then the rest of us). However, with present technology I do believe it is possible to create permanent human settlements in outerspace: in satellites, on the moon, eventually on other planets. We already have astronauts in space-stations for months at a time, how far away are we from having families living up there?



Joe is the only one who has read books on this subject? au contraire.

KC


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> I see the issue of terraforming as separate. It may or may not be possible to re-create earth on mars, im not sure I haven't read anything or studied the issue at all (Joe has read at least one book on the issue so I think he's better qualified to say then the rest of us). However, with present technology I do believe it is possible to create permanent human settlements in outerspace: in satellites, on the moon, eventually on other planets. We already have astronauts in space-stations for months at a time, how far away are we from having families living up there?



Excellent point, Peter! We have already had people walk on the moon, live for months in outer space, and have even developed ways to grow vegetables in weightless conditions without using any soil at all. Understandably, it is taking much time and technology, but all the pieces are gradually coming together. Given another hundred years or more, I don't think it is far-fetched at all to believe people will live in space for even longer amounts of time. 

One of the biggest (if not THE biggest) barrier is the cost of escaping the Earth's gravity. It currently costs around half a billion dollars for the shuttle to make one round trip to space orbit and back. But how much more feasible will it be to make multiple round trips to space if/when technology improves, and cheaper power sources are developed? It's much like airplane flight . . . originally planes were military vehicles and transportation for the rich. But commercialism has brought individual costs down, and so I can now fly across the country for a few hundred bucks. Early automobiles weren't affordable for most people. But then Henry Ford made it possible for average working men to buy them. Early computers were extremely expensive, and only companies with great need and great money purchased them. Today, you can pay $400 for a Dell PC that is more powerful than all of the computing power in Houston used to put a man on the moon in 1969. Technology improves! 

What is monetarily impractical today, is a convenience taken for granted tomorrow. (In fact, a few very rich people have already paid to fly into space! . . . How long until it too becomes commonplace for the rest of us?) I believe commericalism is the key to the same price reductions happening with space travel. That is why I am so excited about the recent private strides made in ramjet technology! As long as NASA rules space, I don't think we'll get much further. But once some multi-billion-dollar companies get into the fray, seeking for commercial profit, I think we will see some serious strides in the price-reduction for average-Joes like me. And once it becomes a major commercial endeavor, the huge cash-inflow will push technological advances even further. Let another few hundred years go by, and we very well may see colonies built on the moon, babies born in space or on the moon, etc. And Mars is just another step beyond that.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

Just a thought: 

If a baby is born in space, in weightlessness, how do we go about baptizing him?

Until the technology is safely developed for this, and is designed in such a way that a lawfully ordained Presbyterian astronaut can easily perform a weightless paedobaptism, it may be wise to restrict the space program to baptists.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 26, 2005)

"One of the biggest (if not THE biggest) barrier is the cost of escaping the Earth's gravity."

See my earlier post in this tread on the space elevator.


----------



## kceaster (Aug 26, 2005)

*Joseph...*



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



I think you misunderstand me. In order for us to live, we have to eat more than life forms in the hearts of rocks. In order for men, women, and children to live on Mars, there has to be water source, food source, and shelter. None of that was created by God. It has to be artificially manipulated by man in order for it to happen. What is there to shield humankind from solar winds? What is there to make a quality of life like here on earth? God created our world as it is to give us a home. I think you're still coming at this deistically. He didn't hand us the keys and say, "Drive it wherever you want." He's in control. Do you believe that?

Now, if you are correct and that human life can be sustained on Mars, then God sustains that life through whatever means He uses. But my point is, God will not allow it. So, if I'm right there will never be successful settlements outside terra firma. We'll just have to wait and see.



> Of course there are life forms that do depend on the water cycle. But just remember that I never claimed Mars can *currently* support *all* forms of life. I just said that it can currently support *some* forms of life. Put some of Earth's hardiest microscopic life on Mars, and I doubt they'd even notice the difference.



Again, I think you're leaving God quite out of the picture. If they exist here, they do so because God sustains them. That doesn't mean that it is immutable that they will exist wherever like conditions are met.



> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> > If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. . . . Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so.
> 
> 
> ...



Let's not make some sort of equivocation here. I'm not saying that technology is in itself, sinful, but what man does with it. You'll recall Babel. That's why I'm saying that any attempt to "slip the surly bonds of earth and touch the face of God," is doomed to failure. In His providence, He's allowed us, yea, even prompted us to do some amazing things. But the moment we start taking control over things and leaving Him out of it, we need to put on the brakes. Do you agree with cloning and stem cell research? I object to those things for the same reason I object to extra-planetary living.



> God did not create man with the built-in ability to traverse space and live on Mars. But I believe God did create man with the ability to seek out even more of God's sovereignly administered laws, to enable him to do so.
> 
> "Great are the works of the LORD,
> studied by all who have pleasure in them." (Psalm 111:2)



You know, it's not some sort of cosmic puzzle we can piece together and somehow find out things God never intended us to know. The secrets of His creation are not stumbled upon. He's revealed them and made them known to whomever He wishes. There is not some maze that we may traverse in order to reach areas we were never intended to find.

But when God makes a statement at Babel, Assyria, Babylon, etc., he means that it will never come to pass. Alexander sought out Babylon to rebuild it. He failed. Sadaam Hussein said the same thing, he failed. God said it would be uninhabitable by anything but the jackal, and it is.

If He creates for us a habitable planet and told us to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth, that is, the planet He created for us, then we had best accomplish that task before we go seeking another. Have we, as His people, subdued the earth? Has any of His redemptive history taken place on any other world or in space? The cosmos centered on one historical fact and everything else revolves around it.

Personally, between creation mandates and the great commission, I think we have enough to do than to waste our efforts in space. My God shall supply all your need means that He will supply it the way He has designed to do so. It would be a new revelation for us if we thought God wanted us to colonize another planet because our needs were not met on this one.

Even if I have to sleep with strangers to my right or to my left, I would not board one transport to some other planet than where Christ was incarnate. All of history culminates at the space in time where Christ was humiliated and exalted. I'll not move anywhere that that history does not know.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Just a thought:
> 
> If a baby is born in space, in weightlessness, how do we go about baptizing him?
> ...



The real question is: Can grapes be grown artificially on Mars? If there are no grapes, there is no Lord's Table.

KC


----------



## Peter (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Sorry about that KC. In the course of our discussion he is the only one to reference the work of a scholar in the field though.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Don_
> I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel.
> 
> 
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix




For the record I am not post-millenial and I think this thread may be the nail in the coffin on me ever becoming one. However. Just because Newtonion physics is the current law of the land doesn't mean we don't have more to learn about physics. As a matter of fact Newtonion physics is on its way out so we can't appeal to that anymore.

We just need the right engine in our ship to go to outer space. I don't know if God will allow that or not. Anybody heard of this guy??

American Antigravity 

Force Borne web

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> I think you misunderstand me. In order for us to live, we have to eat more than life forms in the hearts of rocks.



Straw man. If you go back and read my posts again, I think you will see that I never thought otherwise. 

Rather, the plan is this: Introduce small, hardy life forms that can endure the harsh conditions of Mars, and that do not require any oxygen at all. Those little lifeforms, over time, should multiply, convert some of the C02 to oxygen, and change the very atmosphere of the planet. Then the planet would be habitable to hardy life forms that DO require some oxygen. Over time, the spreading of life could help melt the C02 icecap, which would thicken the atmosphere. Plus, the rising levels of oxygen would be bombarded by cosmic rays, creating ozone, which would protect life from ultraviolet rays. Thus even more life could now survive on the changing face of Mars. The water ice cap would eventually melt, providing more water than is currently accessible on Mars. Over several hundred years, I think you would be amazed at how many changes could take place on the red planet, enabling it to support animals, and eventually even humans.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> In order for men, women, and children to live on Mars, there has to be water source, food source, and shelter. None of that was created by God. It has to be artificially manipulated by man in order for it to happen. What is there to shield humankind from solar winds? What is there to make a quality of life like here on earth? God created our world as it is to give us a home.



There is a water ice cap. Some life forms could start using that. As life spreads, the atmosphere is thickened, the temperature rises, and water eventually melts.

Food would come from the plants and animals which would eventually live there. You introduce those into the planet before you start a human settlement.

As for shelter, there are plenty of natural resources on Mars (metals, etc.) which could be forged into building materials. Plus, once we get trees growing on the planet, there will be wood.

And as I noted above, once there is oxygen in the Martian atmosphere, the cosmic rays themselves will change the upper-atmosphere oxygen into ozone, thus protecting life below from cosmic rays.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I think you're still coming at this deistically. He didn't hand us the keys and say, "Drive it wherever you want." He's in control. Do you believe that?



I am as anti-deist as they come. I believe that Christ upholds everything from moment to moment by His power, and not one thing happens without Him having ordained it. I just don't happen to see any Scriptural prohibition against space exploration, travel, and colonization. I believe God has ordained it to occur. If life is successful on Mars, it will be life God created, and it will live there because God sustains it there.

Your question is similar to someone objecting to all the fruit trees and vegetables and livestock we Americans have introduced to this continent from other continents. God didn't originally put okra over here, so we shouldn't be growing it here? God didn't originally put corn in England, so they shouldn't grow it there? I don't think it works that way.




> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> Now, if you are correct and that human life can be sustained on Mars, then God sustains that life through whatever means He uses. But my point is, God will not allow it. So, if I'm right there will never be successful settlements outside terra firma. We'll just have to wait and see.



How do you know God will not allow it? Is that your opinion, or can you point me to a Scripture that says, "Earth, but no further" ?

I do agree with you that IF God wants to extra-terrestrial settlements, then there will never be any. But I am not aware of any such will of God. On the contrary, I think recent technological advances implicitly suggest that God IS moving us in that direction, via His choice to give such scientific revelations to us.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> Again, I think you're leaving God quite out of the picture. If they exist here, they do so because God sustains them. That doesn't mean that it is immutable that they will exist wherever like conditions are met.



How am I leaving God out of the picture? God created hardy life forms on Earth, didn't He? And He created similar living conditions on Mars, didn't He? And He tends to be consistent, in nature, doesn't He? Are you saying that God can uphold life on Earth, but He couldn't on Mars? What reason do you have for believing that God will not permit life there? 

I repeat: I am as anti-Deist as they come. Rather, if life succeeds ANYWHERE, it will be because God Himself sustains it there. 

And God has ALREADY demonstrated His willingness to sustain human life on the moon and in space for long periods of time. Why should I believe that God will suddenly remove His hand if we venture a little further . . . say, to Mars?



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. . . . Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so.



Well, by the same type of logic, you could argue that God didn't want any railroads in North America, because He went so long without letting there be any.

Just for grins: Why do you suppose God created so many millions of planets? (Or at the very least, why do you suppose He created over 70 of them just in our tiny corner of the galaxy?) . . . just so He could prove how many lifeless rocks He could spin around the stars? 



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> Let's not make some sort of equivocation here. I'm not saying that technology is in itself, sinful, but what man does with it. You'll recall Babel. That's why I'm saying that any attempt to "slip the surly bonds of earth and touch the face of God," is doomed to failure.



Funny . . . I think we already went a lot higher than the top of Babel when we went into space orbit, and when we went to the moon. So in 1950, I suppose you would have said that any manned space travel whatsoever would be impossible?

In fact, just think about skyscrapers themselves. Do you think the Tower of Babel was taller than the Empire State Building? than the Sears Tower? I highly doubt it. --- But I'm pretty sure the *reasoning* behind building the Empire State Building was much different that the reasoning behind building the Tower of Babel. Thus, I don't think God has a big gripe with the Empire State Building. Do you?

Of course it would be sin to try to launch a space rocket to "slip the surly bonds of earth and touch the face of God", with Babel-like motives, would certainly be sin. But you are not accusing me of that are you? Do you not recognize that I would simply be treating Mars as another part of my God's universe, just as Earth is part of His universe? Do you not believe that I would hold to the WCF just as much on Mars as I do on Earth? Do you think my motives for wanting to travel in space are the same as the motives of the people who built Babel? I surely hope you think better of me than that.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> In His providence, He's allowed us, yea, even prompted us to do some amazing things.



I agree. So why exactly don't you think that the colonization of Mars would be an "amazing thing" that could be done for His Glory?



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> But the moment we start taking control over things and leaving Him out of it, we need to put on the brakes. Do you agree with cloning and stem cell research? I object to those things for the same reason I object to extra-planetary living.



Since when did I say we should take control over things and leave Him out? I believe 1 Corinthians 10:31 even applies in space. Do all things to the glory of God. Including space exploration and colonization.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> You know, it's not some sort of cosmic puzzle we can piece together and somehow find out things God never intended us to know. The secrets of His creation are not stumbled upon. He's revealed them and made them known to whomever He wishes. There is not some maze that we may traverse in order to reach areas we were never intended to find.



I totally agree. And thus, 100 years ago, I may have thought space travel would be forever barred to man. (Just read the C.S. Lewis space trilogy, for example . . . he wrote them in such a way that presumed man in general would never be allowed to travel in space.) --- However, God has sovereignly provided man with great space technology in the past few decades. This strongly feeds my belief that God plans for man to eventually conquer Mars, then eventually planets in other solar systems.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> But when God makes a statement at Babel, Assyria, Babylon, etc., he means that it will never come to pass. Alexander sought out Babylon to rebuild it. He failed. Sadaam Hussein said the same thing, he failed. God said it would be uninhabitable by anything but the jackal, and it is.



Amen. But He has never made a "Babel" statement or a "Babylon" statement about Mars, or about space in general, has He?



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If He creates for us a habitable planet and told us to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth, that is, the planet He created for us, then we had best accomplish that task before we go seeking another.



Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

1) God is choosing to reveal much space technology to us at THIS time. Why?

2) How do you know that the technology gained in space exploration/colonization won't assist us in subduing the Earth?

3) To what extent does the Earth need to be subued before you will consider space travel to be OK? What is your criteria for "subduing"?



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Has any of His redemptive history taken place on any other world or in space? The cosmos centered on one historical fact and everything else revolves around it.



So? Before the 15th century, had any redemptive history taken place in any place in North America? Unless you're Mormon, the answer is "no". Does that mean that none of the Puritans should have come to Massachusettes until they made sure everyone in Europe was saved? I don't think so.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Personally, between creation mandates and the great commission, I think we have enough to do than to waste our efforts in space. My God shall supply all your need means that He will supply it the way He has designed to do so.



How do you know that space technology is not one of the means He has designed to do so? Clearly, at least some space technology IS in God's decretive will to supply all our needs and work all things for our good . . . otherwise, there wouldn't BE any space technology. But there is!


God created countless planets. One of the nearest ones happens to be Mars. And . . .

"Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who have pleasure in them." (Psalm 111:2)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> For the record I am not post-millenial and I think this thread may be the nail in the coffin on me ever becoming one.




Why??? What does this thread have to do with whether or not a person decides to be postmillenial? Shouldn't one's eschatology be determined by the Scriptures?

I am postmillenial based on the Scriptures. . . . NOT because of anything I do or do not believe about space travel.

I'm not getting after you. I just really don't understand why you said what you said. 

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Don (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Don_
> ...





I think that the intent of my post was missed. I was not saying it would be *impossible* rather I was looking at the *plausibility* of interstellar travel. (not that I'm against it either). Unlike biblelighthouse, i dont' think money is the biggest obsticle (remember SpaceShipOne). 

Even if you get your propulsion adequate enough for the job, you still have the problems associated with weightlessness, radiation, and the fact that it would take an extremely long time to get anywhere even going the speed of light. Also, it has been said that there are approximately 100,000 particles of dust (composed of ice) for every 1 sq kilometer of space that weight .1 gram each. Colliding into one of these even at a tenth of the speed of light would cause an explosion equal to about 10 tonnes of tnt.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Don_
> I think that the intent of my post was missed. I was not saying it would be *impossible* rather I was looking at the *plausibility* of interstellar travel. (not that I'm against it either). Unlike biblelighthouse, i dont' think money is the biggest obsticle (remember SpaceShipOne).



Don, I meant that money is the biggest obstacle for *near-Earth* space travel, not for interstellar space travel . . . those are two different animals. We _already_ have the science needed to go to Mars. But we certainly do not have the science needed to man a trip to Alpha Centauri yet.

I agree that interstellar travel is completely implausible now. 
But likewise, trips to the moon were utterly implausible for man when we were still trying to figure out how to perfect a steam-locomotive. There was a lot of technological advancement necessary before the dream of space travel changed into a serious plan, and then reality.

Long before we need to even be thinking about interstellar travel, we need to just focus on our own solar system. Using rocket science that we have already had for decades, it would be very doable to send a manned mission to Mars. That planet alone should keep us busy a few hundred years. By then, maybe Venus will be conquerable as well. Then, a thousand years from now or more, maybe our technology will have advanced so far that interstellar travel is no longer implausible.

We need to take baby steps . . . baby steps . . . I never said we should try to figure out how to get to Alpha Centauri before we first conquer Mars.



> _Originally posted by Don_
> Even if you get your propulsion adequate enough for the job, you still have the problems associated with weightlessness, radiation, and the fact that it would take an extremely long time to get anywhere even going the speed of light. Also, it has been said that there are approximately 100,000 particles of dust (composed of ice) for every 1 sq kilometer of space that weight .1 gram each. Colliding into one of these even at a tenth of the speed of light would cause an explosion equal to about 10 tonnes of tnt.



You can spin a vehicle to mimic gravity.

Technology that blocks radiation should continue to improve as time goes by.

Long time equals inconvenience, not impossibility. It is amazing what pioneers are willing to endure.

As for the dust particles, perhaps our technology will improve there, as well. It is not hard to imagine an invention that sends out a wave or infrared beam ahead of the ship, in order to clear out any dust. 


Again, just think of much of the technology we have today. It would have looked like impossible magic to people living just 100 years ago. Think of how unbelievable an airplane or spaceship would have looked to the Puritans! 

Just because something is implausible today, does not mean that it will not be a reality taken for granted tomorrow.

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Augusta (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



I didn't mean to be glib. I just don't see what you are saying about God possibly not returning for 360,000 years, and people living longer and having lots of kids, and the world being peaceful etc etc. I just don't see that happening this side of glory. I don't see any biblical reasons to think any of that excepting maybe the swords beaten into plowshares passage. I don't claim to have full knowledge of the pm view. What I have heard thus far seems more like lots of fun speculation than sound exegesis. I promise to look a little deeper at it though. 

Do you know of any short synopsis or article on the subject to get my feet wet with?? 

And you were so going after me on the subject. 

I was also way too glib. 


[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I didn't mean to be glib. I just don't see what you are saying about God possibly not returning for 360,000 years, and people living longer and having lots of kids, and the world being peaceful etc etc. I just don't see that happening this side of glory. I don't see any biblical reasons to think any of that excepting maybe the swords beaten into plowshares passage. I don't claim to have full knowledge of the pm view. What I have heard thus far seems more like lots of fun speculation than sound exegesis. I promise to look a little deeper at it though.



Ok, I see where you're coming from. And you are certainly correct that this current space-exploration thread has not included any exegetical support for postmillenialism. If this thread was all I had to read, I certainly would not have switched to postmillenialism.

Please understand that none of my statements in this thread were intended to prove postmillenialism. Rather, since I already believe in postmillenialism, that has clearly shown through as a presupposition, and I have not defended it (in this thread).

But you and I are totally in agreement: We should definitely not accept any eschatology without sound Biblical exegesis solidly under our feet. And please undestand that I have studied postmillenialism in Scripture quite a bit . . . I have devoured several books on the subject, and *after* considering their arguments from Scripture, I changed my mind. (Believe it or not, I have not always been postmillenial . . . I used to be a big "Left Behind" fan! Yuck!)



> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> Do you know of any short synopsis or article on the subject to get my feet wet with??



I'm glad you asked.  

Here is a short synopsis on my website, with links to some articles: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/eschatology/esc-postmillenial.htm

And here is a short synopsis of Postmillenial partial-preterism, which I personally hold to: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/eschatology/esc-preterist.htm

And if you want to read a detailed, book-length, exegetical treatise on Biblical postmillenialism, I highly recommend "He Shall Have Dominion" by Dr. Kenneth Gentry. You can read it free here: http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2202_47e.htm

For a shorter book, "Postmillenialism" by Keith Mathison is also quite good.



> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> And you were so going after me on the subject.
> 
> I was also way too glib.



No problemo. You have a very sweet spirit, Traci.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

Also good:

The Biblical basis of Postmillennialism


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 26, 2005)

Joseph, 

Those are some of the best resources on postmillennialism that I have seen compiled in one place. Thanks for the references!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Joseph,
> 
> Those are some of the best resources on postmillennialism that I have seen compiled in one place. Thanks for the references!



My pleasure! Thank you!


----------

