I agree. There at least has to be another planet with small living bacteria somewhere in the universe.
Problem is, a planet would need to have an atmosphere to sustain even bacteria or single cell organisms, which essentially would mean the planet would give life to much more. The sheer improbability of what happened to Earth during the years following the big bang outweighs any "but theres so many planets" argument as far as raw, hard, mathmatical, statistical debate goes. Remember, space isn't infinite, and nowhere near it, actually. It's just expanding at a huge rate. Galaxies are being pulled further apart, but none are being created. Besides, humans will be wiped out long before we'll see any kind of "in.ter-galactic travel". And anyway, the nearest planets we could go to would take hundreds or literally thousands of years to reach, even at the speed of light (and we all know that physical matter would never reach the same speed as photons). I don't believe in the slightest that there's life beyond earth.
(snip) +1 (snip) +2 (snip) Hi inverse. One thing I can not tolerate more than self-righteous religious fanatics is self-righteous fanatics that tell the self-righteous religious fanatics they're wrong. Be smart. I think you spelled 'Resurrection' wrong. Oh wait, I think I get it. Its a RES(+) + ERECTION(^)! Yes, I do believe in gods. -------------------- <div align="center"></div>
one rock out of billions just happens to be the only one capable of supporting life? Just thinking this is the only one is pure ignorance
I think that some concepts the human brain can't fully or partially grasp. For example, there is a paradox in logic here: p: If the universe exists, it has always existed. q: Everything has a starting point. Since p^q isn't possible we'll have to assume that it's pvq. But we accept p^q anyways. I think life is just another example of one of these concepts. The only difference is, we think we CAN understand it. How can we apply logic to life when life is what our logic comes from? Sometimes, thinking illogically isn't just pure ignorance. I think in many areas, thinking logically is being ignorant. -------------------- <div align="center"></div>
Hell is described in most religious scriptures as being a place entirely without God, so yes, he would go to hell regardless of religious belief or not (ie whether he is real, and just going to hell because he's not a child a god or w/e or god isn't real). Some edits add little things like when the dragon comes from hell flames are about and shit, but this just lets you know whoever wrote the book was on crack and comparable to the modern day hollywood producers. If you want a description of hell, you don't follow Hollywood... but that should be common sense. Read the *old* version of scriptures. For instance, my mom has an old english text holy bible about... 7 inches thick which dates back to the mid 1800s as a translation from 'the original tongues', and it's version of revelations compared to todays? Seems like a completely different revelations. Their version of the prophecies? Same thing. Of course they have major things, but its the smaller things (like it often is) that lets you know whether the writer(s) were on opium or not and dreaming half this stuff up to make the bible more enticing / suspenseful. The *only* thing religion has on its side is that scientists don't understand how we all came to be, something cannot come from nothing, so the *logical* conclusion (and albeit, not a very logical one) is that something did exist, while we cannot find proof of it, and either created what we currently live on, or blew up into what we currently have. Once that is disproven, the amount of religious numbers in the world will drop dramatically, because that is the fundamental basis of religion vs evolution (and yes, regardless of what scriptures state, evolution is real, its really more like creationalism vs evolution). Then once we figure out if we existed through the opposite of a hole, etc. and that is why we can't find what made our planet we will move forward to figure out what is on the other side of the black hole and keep expanding on it. The more we figure out scientifically, the less people will believe. Feel free to try to show what you know about your religion against me, unless your muslim I have one or more religious books on the bookshelf behind me I can peel open and point to in order to disprove you. Part of my desire to understand human psychology requires me to understand human psychology with religion, and to understand that I need to understand religion vs science, and the tree branches extend from there. Oh, and as a leaving note... nearly every major world religion, including Satanism, says the same thing with different names. Regarding aliens, yes, of course there are. Every space bot we have sent out only shows barren ground, but at the same time we very rarely have gone underground, and to extend on that... what if the video on said cameras (as well as our human eyes) can't see the graphic frequencies present on other planets? The same concept of dogs being able to hear what we can't applies to different waves through your eyes, what if their skin is something our eyes can't perceive? All of the robots we have sent have been destroyed, generally within seconds of being functional. Most of them have not been recovered... now I know mars has things like dust storms... but are you really going to say that our robot, which weighs countless hundreds of pounds... is getting destroyed in seconds on an alien planet which has external occurences that we can monitor and predict nearly as well as our own planet. Scientists have also already mentioned there is a strong likelihood that there are countless thousands of planet potentially behind Pluto we aren't able to identify, and every star out in the world could be the equivalent to our sun in our current solar system, and there are *billions* you can see in the night sky that we can't even approach to study. This also brings into account another question, particularly regarding black holes... they could be a time warp, seems a bit too science fiction, right? Well it is a valid scientific theory, but unfortunately not a very testable one.
Yes. I disagree, though, that this is the only thing religion has against science. Anything that science cannot prove religion has a one-up on (Likewise, anything that religion cannot prove, which is a lot of things, science has an advantage). The more science figures out, the less faith people will place in religion. The more science figures out, the more faith people will place in science. Perhaps one day a new type of thought will emerge (let's say, art. I don't know.) and those people will start attacking science like science is attacking religion today. All this may seem off topic but it's not. If you're going to talk about extraterrestrial life the discussion will involve religion because people (not all people) believe that life is a God-given gift. -------------------- <div align="center"></div>
I always think that maybe there's another galaxy out there that is just like ours. Kinda like an alternate dimension.
Ok take Mars for an exmaple. If any of you know anything abot it, it used to have oceans of water on it. Where there is water, there is life. I have a good feeling that when we get up to mores and we start to dig, like we do for fossils here, we will find something. It may not be huge bones of aliens or dinosaurs, but they will fine smaller forms of life. So if that happens, there goes to show that there has and can be other forms of life on other planets. One thing I think is funny, is when all of you talk about life on other planets, you get religion involved. How do those even come up in convos like these??? If any of you have the History Channel, you will need to watch the show called "The Universe". It will make you think differently if you think there is no life on other planets.
They're actually finding gas production on Mars that is very likely a result of bacteria. Investigations are to ensue.
