# Intelligent Life Elswhere?



## kevin.carroll (Jul 18, 2005)

I thought this might be an enjoyable (and stimulating) departure from some of the other topics: Do you think that there is intelligent (non-divine/angelic!) life elsewhere in the universe? Why or why not? I've heard interesting arguments on both sides...


----------



## Poimen (Jul 18, 2005)

No because unicorns can hide in the asteroid belt when I am looking for them...

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by poimen]


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 18, 2005)

Oh, the universe, I thought you mean't anywhere besides the Puritan Board. No there isn't.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Oh, the universe, I thought you mean't anywhere besides the Puritan Board. No there isn't.



Any particular reason you are so sure?


----------



## sastark (Jul 18, 2005)

No. Because when you apply the Regulative Principle to Theonomy, then factor in the Biblical Principles of Economics, you are left with a non-subscriptionist standing.

:bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile:



> an enjoyable (and stimulating) departure from some of the other topics


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> No. Because when you apply the Regulative Principle to Theonomy, then factor in the Biblical Principles of Economics, you are left with a non-subscriptionist standing.
> 
> :bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile:
> ...





Seriously, though, I can't think of an unassailable reason to not allow for the possibility.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 18, 2005)

I don't know why you are worried about intelligent life elsewhere when we have enough to wonder about intelligent life here. 

No, I don't believe that there is. I think the biggest argument against intelligent life elsewhere is that Christ came to this planet in God's eternal decree of salvation. That puts this planet in a very important position. Not even the angels received this kind of favour. So we would have to think of an equally favourable situation for another planet if there are "image-bearers" on other planets. After all, that is the ultimate question: not whether there is intelligent life elsewhere, but whether there are image-bearers of God elsewhere.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I don't know why you are worried about intelligent life elsewhere when we have enough to wonder about intelligent life here.
> 
> No, I don't believe that there is. I think the biggest argument against intelligent life elsewhere is that Christ came to this planet in God's eternal decree of salvation. That puts this planet in a very important position. Not even the angels received this kind of favour. So we would have to think of an equally favourable situation for another planet if there are "image-bearers" on other planets. After all, that is the ultimate question: not whether there is intelligent life elsewhere, but whether there are image-bearers of God elsewhere.



A question which, ultimately, I guess we don't know the answer to. But it is an interesting way of approaching the question, I'll admit.


----------



## Robin (Jul 18, 2005)

Well, first, before I take the trouble to reflect theologically....

I met a scientist from JPL once. She (yes, she) had two Ph.ds, made the cut for astronaut on the shuttle; designed the Jupiter probe; and (of course) studied the universe on a regular-technical basis.

I just had to ask if "she and the boys" (meaning all the behind the scenes scholars - never mentioned on the 5 O'clock News) had any inkling at all if there really was serious evidence for life outside earth? Unanimously she and her colleagues agreed: No way. There is no evidence; no patterns pointing to a possibility, Etc. In fact, she continued, that the more research done, the more they know for sure - life on earth is utterly unique. And THIS was the thing that vexed, exhausted and depressed her. She had varioius, personally-invented equations to what the alternative answer could be, noting that there must be an intelligent designer of some sort. Despairing, thus far, and during our casual exchange, she asked me what my thoughts were about WHO might have created the universe? (She had noted design patterns shared in the galaxies and biology.) This brought about a fascinating conversation.)

Meanwhile, she further explained that the media hub-bub is about book sales; fame; fortune; power in the scientific community. "The Emperor has no clothes." Groups like SETI easily attain government funding -- and this is job security, of course.

JPL is Jet Propulsion Labs, Pasadena - NASA research group.



Robin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 18, 2005)

I heard a guest on Art Bell (Coast to Coast) say there is life on Mars. They are supper humans who weren't affected by the fall. Then some Charismaniacs also called in to comfirm this belief that there is life on mars.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 18, 2005)

I read that C.S. LEwis book too.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I heard a guest on Art Bell (Coast to Coast) say there is life on Mars. They are supper humans who weren't affected by the fall. Then some Charismaniacs also called in to comfirm this belief that there is life on mars.



IMPOSSIBLE! So, let me get this - they would be unfallen super humans living in a cursed universe. Natural evil would surround them by no fault of their own. They would just have to deal with it. Sounds like some bad theology right there.

If there is . . . they certainly are not human (i.e. rational beings)!


----------



## Augusta (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I read that C.S. LEwis book too.


----------



## Robin (Jul 18, 2005)

Anybody read: "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men" by Hugh Ross & Ken Samples?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576832082/qid



Robin


----------



## turmeric (Jul 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I heard a guest on Art Bell (Coast to Coast) say there is life on Mars. They are supper humans who weren't affected by the fall. Then some Charismaniacs also called in to comfirm this belief that there is life on mars.



They aren't fallen, but they're Charismatic?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

Am I the only one that laughed at Manata's joke?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 19, 2005)

If we discovered alien life on other planets but they didn't baptize their babies, would the paedos still consider them intelligent. Hmmmmmmmmm?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> maybe. My opinion is that there isn't, but I see no Scriptural support for being dogmatic here. I wouldn't want the Church embarrassed like when we said the earth was the center of the universe, etc. So, we shouldn't be dogmatic where the Bible isn't.
> 
> The only thought I had was that if one could show that God only made men in his image, then since rationality is part of God's immage, there may be alien life but not rational life, elsewhere. (Or, I guess there could be men elsewhere.)
> ...



I guess this is essentially my position too. IGod certainly could put His image on other creatures. I don't honestly know how much help the Bible is on this subject since it deals with this world only. Anyone ever read Perilandra?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I heard a guest on Art Bell (Coast to Coast) say there is life on Mars. They are supper humans who weren't affected by the fall. Then some Charismaniacs also called in to comfirm this belief that there is life on mars.



I used to listen to him. He is more out there than Fox Mulder!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Here's a thing to chew on: is the entire universe really cursed? Or just the portion of it that pertains to our condition? The Bible speaks in universal terms, but in places it is clear that the "universe" in view is our world only.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> ...



Would the original readers/hearers of the Scriptures have assumed that theirs was the only inhabited world in the universe? Probably.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I don't think we know that, but even if they did, it proves nothing. The disciples believed in ghosts. Doesn't mean there are any.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 19, 2005)

Paul why do you beat up on Vincent Cheung so much?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 19, 2005)

ok, continue the beatings on Vincent


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 19, 2005)

Elsewhere... I'm not so sure there is any intelligent life on this planet... Look at how horrible our government is... they tax and regulate everything into the ground and stifle free enterprise... Business leaders engage in an immediate gratification philosophy and destroy their long-term future by getting "creative" with the numbers in the short-term. Church leaders hold 40 Days of Purpose seminars and read from Rick Warren's book... enough said. 

Except for God being intelligent, I cannot think of any others.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 19, 2005)

Actually, Ryan, though you said that kind of tongue-in-cheek, yet there is a lot of truth to it. "Elsewhere" means, as I take it, any place else but earth. But as this earth is a fallen race; all the real intelligence that exists is outside the earth's confines, in the angels and God Himself. That is, with the exception of the redeemed who have the mind of Christ. 

But: we have to remember that NASA does not stand for National Agnositic Space Administration. And they did land on the moon. And, as I recall, they took a Bible with them.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the Bible tells us that *ALL* creation groans. The Bible tells us that all that exists besides God (sun, moon, stars,) is part of creation. So, logically, if *all* creation groans, and space is a part of creation, then space groans because of its being subjected to "bondage of decay."



Is that "all" like Christ's propitiation being for "all" the world? Or that God is not willing that any should perish but "all" come to repentance? Or the Romans' faith being told in "all" the world? Obviously the word "all" needs some qualifications.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Actually, Ryan, though you said that kind of tongue-in-cheek, yet there is a lot of truth to it. "Elsewhere" means, as I take it, any place else but earth. But as this earth is a fallen race; all the real intelligence that exists is outside the earth's confines, in the angels and God Himself. That is, with the exception of the redeemed who have the mind of Christ.
> 
> But: we have to remember that NASA does not stand for National Agnositic Space Administration. And they did land on the moon. And, as I recall, they took a Bible with them.



That's why I worded the question the way I did. But really: would it shake our faith to discover life somewhere else? Personally mine wouldn't be. I cannot see how an infinte God can be infinitely glorified by revealing himself to a finite race.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 19, 2005)




----------



## Poimen (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



You are missing my point Kevin (although I could have stated it more clearly). When we exegete scripture we must first consider the authors intent and the assumptions of the people to whom he wrote about what he would have meant (meaning of words, societal and cultural conventions). Taking this into consideration, I believe it is quite reasonable to assume that texts that pertain to the parousia and even creation, would rule out the understanding that there were any other inhabited worlds out there.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 19, 2005)

So are assuming intelligent life=humanoid?

blade


----------



## SRoper (Jul 19, 2005)

I put down "no" because that is where the evidence is.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 19, 2005)

When Christ returns, and everything folds up, or burns with fire, that would include inhabitants of faraway planets, wouldn't it? Or would Christ return there too at the same time? Wouldn't that mean that Christ had already been there to return too? Why would He, if thay hadn't fallen? And if they had also fallen, why this extreme separation with others of His creation, when He does not even maintain such a separation between angels and men, or even between Himself and men. 

There are a lot of ramifications, the above of which does not even represent the tip of the iceberg. And many of these would involve what we would know about God, or rather what we would question about God, if we were to find intelligent life, civilization, on some other world. I think it would effect my faith-life.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> That's why I worded the question the way I did. But really: would it shake our faith to discover life somewhere else? Personally mine wouldn't be. I cannot see how an infinte God can be infinitely glorified by revealing himself to a finite race.



Does it matter how you can see that and infinite God can be infinitelly glorified by revealing himself to a finite race. I will glorify from here out. He has made me his prize. I will be a picture of how infinitely wonderful he is. He stoops awful low to lift us up so high. 

Kevin, what does the cross mean in eternity? Oh never mind, I guess it isn't infinitely important. There is no glory in the cross. It is just foolishness.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 19, 2005)

Any scriptural evidence of angels having some creative power? I'm under the belief they can not make something out of nothing as God has done.

Is it possible to create something out of pre-existing material as man has accomplished? Can we say that the angels are incapable of making a living creature? 

Is the belief of extraterrestrial life influenced by the demonic realm? Is there a method conducted by unholy spiritual influence to conjure such activity?


----------



## cupotea (Jul 19, 2005)

Somewhere in The Christian Philosopher, Cotton Mather suggested that aliens exist. Unfortunately, I can't find the quotation right now, so you'll have to take my word for it. But I did find this:

"Mr Derham...has demonstrated, that there are great Collections of Waters in the Moon, and by consequence Rivers, and Vapours, and Air; and in a word, a considerable Apparatus for Habitation. But by what Creatures inhabited? A Difficulty this, that cannot be solved without Revelation."

 except for all of the outdated science about the moon...


----------



## cupotea (Jul 20, 2005)

Of course, I can't stop there, because my favourite quotation from the book is on the next page:

"The Influences of the Moon upon Sublunary Bodies, are very wonderful... . Our Lunaticks are not the only Instances."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 20, 2005)

Just to put in my 

I would agree with some here, that it would not surprise me to find some sort of life elsewhere in the Universe. But I don't think we will find men. Scripture speaks of only 2 "intelligent" life forms out there, men and angels. Angels don't breed. So, the only way for intelligent life to get out there is for us to travel there and colonize. That doesn't rule out microbes and animals and such. 

Another consideration is that in Romans 8, Paul state "the creation was subject to futility." What is the creation? I don't think it's a stretch to understand that Paul included the Sun, Moon, and stars in that category, as Gen. 1 clearly teaches. All creation, the Universe, was affected by the Fall. Why else do you think the Moon was bombarded with meteors (or the other planets as well?) Why are stars dying? in my opinion, anything that man could physically touch in this creation has been affected by the Fall, and so under the curse. 

But this raises another interesting question. What did God give man stewardship over? Just the earth? Or the whole created Universe? Would it be proper for man to colonize Mars and subdue it as well?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> You are missing my point Kevin (although I could have stated it more clearly). When we exegete scripture we must first consider the authors intent and the assumptions of the people to whom he wrote about what he would have meant (meaning of words, societal and cultural conventions). Taking this into consideration, I believe it is quite reasonable to assume that texts that pertain to the parousia and even creation, would rule out the understanding that there were any other inhabited worlds out there.



You will get no argument from me on the necessity of understanding authorial intent and original audience as vitals tools of exegesis. But we also need to realize that the Bible uses language of accomodation. As such, the Bible does not communicate in terms of 21st century science. When Genesis 1 talks about the stars hung in the firmament, it is obviously not being scientifically precise.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 20, 2005)

Psalm 8:

3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 

Hebrews 1:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Romans 8:

17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 
19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 
20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 
21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> But this raises another interesting question. What did God give man stewardship over? Just the earth? Or the whole created Universe? Would it be proper for man to colonize Mars and subdue it as well?



That is an interesting question. You among the famous scientific blunders of the Church made for theological reasons (Copernicus, Galileo, et al) were the ones to come out of the technological advances of the 20th century. It was said we would never be able to have radio since Satain is the Prince and Power of the air. It was said that we would never have to have TV since Satain is the Prince and Power of the air. It was said that we would never put a man on the moon since Satain is the Prince and Power of the air...Seems to be an emerging theme.

Personally, I hope space travel becomes commercial and affordable before I shove off this mortal coil. How I would love to stand on the moon!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 20, 2005)

Oh, and for all you Trekkies out there, James Doohan just died (Jim).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Personally, I hope space travel becomes commercial and affordable before I shove off this mortal coil. How I would love to stand on the moon!



I Don't Want to Live on the Moon



> Well, I'd like to visit the moon
> On a rocket ship high in the air
> Yes, I'd like to visit the moon
> But I don't think I'd like to live there
> ...



[Edited on 7-20-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Oh, and for all you Trekkies out there, James Doohan just died (Jim).



See this thread.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jul 20, 2005)

why was the poll worded so positively?
why not:
is life possible on other planets?
or add a don't know but possible middle choice.

to claim something that is unknown seems too strong a position.

....


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Oh, and for all you Trekkies out there, James Doohan just died (Jim).



I guess that gives a whole new meaning to, "Beam me up, Scottie." I can see a whole new cult starting out on that one. 

Sometimes I feel like I'm from another planet, the way things are going on this one.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Slippery_
> ...



I really wish that you would save that for somewhere else Paul.

It frustrates me every time that you promote VT like that b/c I have NEVER heard a convincing argument on how VT can mesh with Romans 1. I will never join with VT to strike unbelief down b/c our sin is founded in NOT knowing God when He has made himself clear. Romans 1 makes this crystal clear. Our sin is not founded in denying that we know God when we really do as VT says. Scripture never says that all men know God. To take one verse that speaks in past tense and build a whole movement, like VT has, is amazing but sad to me.

Forgive me for the schpill . . . I had to make it clear that there are crystal clear reasons why not all have joined VT presuppositionalism.


I completely agree with you on the entire universe being cursed. There is simply no way that rational beings could exist somewhere out there unfallen. It would not harm or embarass the church, it would nullify it. It would nullify the gospel. That is how confident we can be. If they are out there, they are descendents of Adam, and fell when our representative fell.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Oh yeah, and are you positing that there may be areas of creation that do not decline (entropy) and no "death" occurs?
> 
> The burden of proof would be on you, here. Also, I said "all" but I think the passage says "The creation."
> ...



Since I cannot prove the negative proposition...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I think the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that the "universal" language of the Bible was intended to be understood with 21st century definitions in mind.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)




----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 21, 2005)

I remain unconvinced, but hey.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

I think Joel Osteen might be an alien.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 21, 2005)

Just to put this out there not dogmatically just to get a feel. Is it at all possible that the reason or reasons the bible is not clear on alien life(human,angel, or humanoid or other) on other planets in Gods universe because the Bible has a redemptive theme dealing with humans primarilly- angels secondarilly. Kinda like why baseball is not mentioned in the bible not because baseball isnt real but because it is not part of what God is telling us in the Bible. Like genesis for example deals with the antedilluvian period very enigmatically not going into the lush details but overviewing and emphasizing Gods redemptive plan for his people.

Just a thought,
Blade


----------



## cupotea (Jul 21, 2005)

Blade you just did what I thought was impossible: you compared aliens to baseball!


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 21, 2005)

I believe the answer is no. No other life exists apart from the earth. My reasons are two-fold and are offered not as dogmatic reasons or arguments, but just food for thought.

First, I've heard it said by a "universe specialist" on TV that in order for earth to be "earth", it is necessary for all of the other planets to be where they are and what they are. As an extrapolation, all of the other neighboring solar systems must be where they are and what they are to sustain our solar system. The other galaxies follow suit. Lastly he said that all of the universe must exist in order for life on earth to exist.

Because of the above, it makes more sense to not think of the rest of the universe as simply "wasted space" and "what a shame to not do anything with it." Its all there serving its purpose just the way it is, and it doesn't need any "life" in order to give it its significance. (Also, its bringing glory to God just the way it is; life wouldn't necessarily up its value.)

Second point:
Having life ONLY here on earth, in my opinion, highlights just how "special" we are to God, and just how "lavish" He is to lay out this entire universe and ONLY put man on this tiny slice of it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)

what about plant life ? or cellular organism's? Im not discounting your theory but thats all it is. Likewise with mine that there is life out there. But it is more plausible that there is lif eout there is some form or another. 

If earth is so special in its own right. It is. But as in what you stated. Then what if man goes to mars and remolds it into a habitable planet. It is the most earthlike of all the other planets. So then what happens to the idea you have stated. 

Just wondering. 

Blade


----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2005)

What is implicit in this discussion, as Christopher implied, is what value we give to life here on earth. Is life here that important that an entire endless universe doing nothing else but supporting life on this planet? But even such a seeming self-centred, self-importance view pales in comparison to the fact that the Creator of that endless universe Himself came to earth to be one of us, to die for us, to save us, to give us everlasting fellowship with Him. So I do not wonder at all that life here is _that_ important that an entire endless universe serves to support the life for which the Son of God gave His. 

But what if we go on, and discuss a side issue of this? If there is life out there, would you expect it to like life on earth, or do you imagine a Star Wars/Star Trek array of aliens? I think the latter is ridiculous nonsense, nothing more than overactive imagination. I would expect creatures like us, with only minor differences.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Sure, no problem:
> 
> 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God.
> ...



The RCC used similar verses to support a geocentric model of the universe...

Let's suppose (hey, we ARE dealing in hypotheticals!) that we did in fact discover incontrovertible evidence that we are not alone in the universe. How would we explain it theologically? We might suggest that the universal language of the Bible refers to the universe of *our experience.* Or we might go so far as to suggest that it refers to the universe of the experience of the authors of the Bible. Or perhaps another theory.

I think we need to be careful that we not try to make the Bible say things it was not intended to say. The Scriptures are about the redemptive history of mankind not, say, Mork from Ork.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Just to put this out there not dogmatically just to get a feel. Is it at all possible that the reason or reasons the bible is not clear on alien life(human,angel, or humanoid or other) on other planets in Gods universe because the Bible has a redemptive theme dealing with humans primarilly- angels secondarilly. Kinda like why baseball is not mentioned in the bible not because baseball isnt real but because it is not part of what God is telling us in the Bible. Like genesis for example deals with the antedilluvian period very enigmatically not going into the lush details but overviewing and emphasizing Gods redemptive plan for his people.
> 
> Just a thought,
> Blade



My thought exactly. We need to be careful how far we press the Scriptures, making them say things they never intended to.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> But what if we go on, and discuss a side issue of this? If there is life out there, would you expect it to like life on earth, or do you imagine a Star Wars/Star Trek array of aliens? I think the latter is ridiculous nonsense, nothing more than overactive imagination. I would expect creatures like us, with only minor differences.



I would tend to agree. I think this is where the arguments made earlier about the image of God fall down. We do not know for sure what the image is (although we can infer some ideas from Gen 1-2). It is not beyond the scope of imagination that God could have placed it on other creatures in other worlds. I've heard people protest that Christ would have had to die on other worlds, then. But that is assuming that others' history paralleled our own.

What if (maybe I should be a sci-fi writer!) angels and demons are bound by more or less the same rules of time and space as we are, as it pertains to movement, i.e. if it would take them a bazillion years to travel to the next inhabited world, would they not be bound to activity on this one?

:::twilight zone music plays:::


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Then you totally missed my point. I was arguing not for mork and mindy, but for the fact of sin's effects. I gave what I thought to be a good argument that all of creation is affected by sin. I give two hoots about aliens. I do care about sin and redemption. As you said, the Scriptures are about redemptive history, the redemption of creation is part of that history.



I guess you missed mine then.  We are discussing the same thing. The only question is has sin affected the universe as WE understand it or the universe as the AUTHORS of the Bible understood it?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 22, 2005)

Of course, NONE of us KNOW one way or the other.

But it is very easy for me to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

First of all, our understanding of the universe is rapidly improving. 100 years ago, There were only 8 known planets in the universe. The discovery of Pluto was a big deal!

But just within the last few years, MANY more planets have been discovered within a mere astronomical stone's throw of our solar system. Over 70 different planets have beed discovered! And these planets discovered so far are about the size of Jupiter. And there is no telling how many more planets there are of a smaller size . . . say, EARTH-sized. If we just discovered 70 Jupiters in our little neighborhood, then I fully expect we'll find 2 or 3 hundred Earth-sized planets nearby once our technology gets better able to detect them. (You have no idea how difficult it is to detect a planet revolving around a star in space!)

A little bit of simple math suggests that Earth-sized planets are most likely NOT RARE AT ALL in the universe. It is VERY plausible that there are literally hundreds of BILLIONS of Earth-sized planets in the universe.

Did the early guys (like Abraham) think they were the only intelligent life in the universe? Yeah, probably.

But then again, they thought they were the only intelligent life on Earth, too! . . . They thought their continent was the ONLY continent on Earth. . . . The Apostle Paul didn't seem to know anything about North America or Australia. So what of the human beings living on those continents at that time? There were entire continents full of human beings that the Bible authors did not even include in their definition of the "world".

And now here we are a few thousand years later, on a little "continent in space" called "Earth". And so many people seem so sure that there aren't any other inhabited "continents" out there. But I am not so sure. God had to have created all those billions of planets for _some reason_ . . . 

(But then again, who knows? Maybe those planets are just where the angels keep all their golf courses . . . )


----------



## govols (Jul 22, 2005)

I'll be in D.C. next week and I doubt I will find too many intelligent life forms there.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)




----------



## Poimen (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by govols_
> I'll be in D.C. next week and I doubt I will find too many intelligent life forms there.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I have responded several times...but perhaps I am not rising to the level of some tacit definition of "response" that you have? As I and others have pointed out, why can we not entertain the notion that the Bible speaks to and about humans only?

Yes, I would agree that Gen. 1 speaks of the universe being created...but then the account immediately focuses on our little planet, does it not? We know there are others out there.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think Joel Osteen might be an alien.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> ...



Well, I have never made a pop shot like this before. I have never posted anything like this out of the apologetics thread. Your accusation is unwarranted. I have dialogued with you and other VT's quite extensivelly, though you seem to not remember. Trust me, I may have stated it too fast and brief, but I know what you hold. There is no sense in using the imageo dei to hold men accountable when Romans 1 says we are inexcusable ONLY b/c creation stands as clear revelation of God and his attributes. I will post no more here. I simply felt a response was needed, b/c of your overly confident tone. Also, chill out with the chanllenging remarks. We are serving God here. 

My apologies for bringing all this about out of context. : )


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I heard a guest on Art Bell (Coast to Coast) say there is life on Mars. They are supper humans who weren't affected by the fall. Then some Charismaniacs also called in to comfirm this belief that there is life on mars.



I've encountered a fellow claims to be Christian on Free Republic who's into "dreams and visions" and aliens and some evil goup of "puppet masters".


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)

Im into biblical dreams and visions and their indeed is an evil group of 'puppet masters' called the vatican and tyrants. 



blade


----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2005)

For intelligent life to exist elsewhere, they would have to be able to think, and therefore be sure that they exist. Until they're sure, we can't be sure.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)

I think therefore i-am or think so?

blade


----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2005)

Maybe it should be, "I speculate, therefore I am. Other people may speculate, but I can't speculate that, so they aren't."


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)

Well thats your wrong opinion


----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2005)

You're pretty sharp, Nathan. Way to go.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)

Impretty sharp for a dull person


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> I think therefore i-am or think so?
> 
> blade



"I think, therefore I am, I think." -- The Moody Blues


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)




----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2005)

Well, we settled one thing: there is intelligent life here, even if its not in Washington DC. By the way, you do know what DC stands for don't you? It stands to De Capitol.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Well, we settled one thing: there is intelligent life here, even if its not in Washington DC. By the way, you do know what DC stands for don't you? It stands to De Capitol.



Hey, I resemble that remark!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 22, 2005)

No it stands for De C'Fatherland (silent C)

:bigsmile:


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I guess that's because you aren't choosing to see a counter. Essentially, we are arguing semantics. The thrust of your argument is similar to the one that says, "'All' means 'all' and that's all 'all' means." You argue that "creation" means then entire universe every time it occurs in the Bible. I am suggesting that it doesn't. Take for instance Rom 4:13 for instance. It says that Abraham and his descendants will inherit the _kosmos_. Does that mean the entire universe? Or the entire world? You are arguing the former and I am arguing the latter. If the latter is such, then it is possible that there are other things going on in other worlds.

You say death and destruction (the effects of the curse) are universal. How do you know? Where is the evidence of death on the moon? On Venus? On Mars? We've been to those worlds. There aren't any thorns. Admittedly, they are empty, but that really proves nothing.

You brought up entropy in the universe. What does that prove? How do we know that is not the natural order of things?

In the final analysis we don't. So we are back to arguing semantics.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> nope, you admitted that in Gen. 1 that means *ALL* that exists. So, now why do you believe that and why is my argument bad which shows that the heavens and earth and elements means the heavens and earth of Gen 1? Also, the New heaven and earth of revelation, why does that not mean what it meant in Genesis?



I must not be saying what I mean very clearly, because I keep repeating it. You are suggesting that the word "creation" has the same meaning everytime it appears in the Bible. I am suggesting it might not. Simple enough? 

In any event, I think this thread has run its course. Hehehe.


----------



## govols (Jul 26, 2005)

Hey I did encounter some Intelligent Lifeforms in D.C., no wait, just tourists.

Sorry false alarm.


----------

