HI! My husband (who is a non practicing protestant) tells me that he has two specific views on how life started..one in being with the theory of evolution (afterall, how could one dispute the findings of dinosaurs, thus once and for all, giving PROOF that we started as tiny organisms of pond scum...) OR that God is actually an alien being that came to this planet (and many others) to start life here (bringing an alien population with him)...and that during the times of Jesus, people were oppressed and needed something to believe in, thus JESUS was the icon of the day. (like the president or hitler etc.) People wanted to believe in something/someone..NEEDED to believe, so they made Jesus what he was.. OK..now I have to listen to this HOGWASH all the time, (you can imagine the arguements in my house) but I want to know WHY there seems to be a growing theory of this ALIEN thing?? I can see how people might be lead by evolutionary theories but an alien? I have met at least 2 other people during this last year who seem to hold the same beliefs..Is the world going mad? Is this a popular thing nowadays?

-- Lori K (me@myhowz.com), June 29, 2004

Answers

The "God was an alien" idea doesn't really solve anything: after all, who created the alien? Your Husband is kind of like the Hindu cosmologist who was asked what caused Earthquakes: "easy, the earth rests on the back of 12 elephants, when they shift, the ground trembles" Then he was asked "what do the elephants stand on?" Confidently he replied "why, the great turtle" And what does the turtle rest on? his reply "don't ask foolish questions!"

So the hypothesis of aliens doesn't really explain things...it just pushes the explanation back....but logically you can't keep passing the buck further and further back because as we all know... the universe is finite and only 14 billion years old.

Secondly, simple cause and effect show us that since we are sentient beings, personal, free and rational, "we" couldn't be the effect of blind chance! Soul can't be the effect of matter for the simple reason that effects can't be greater than their cause: Matter is made of parts, hence is spatial/temporal. But soul, "life", the principle of order, the animating principle...is NOT spatial or temporal. Conceptual thought (the idea of "meaning", the concept of "if", the thought of "justice" or "fairness" or "analogy" or even the idea "nothing"...all these real things are not spatial/temporal. They're real, yet not made of matter/energy...yet we know them! Thus, something in man is NOT matter...

But if an effect can not be greater than its cause...this means that the cause of human intellect/will (the human soul) cannot have been matter but some other intellect and will! Some other personal being who is spiritual.

Thus, claiming some alien species started life on this planet 4 billion years ago doesn't explain your life or mine. If we were brute mammals...who don't ask such questions...the science fiction idea would be fine. But since we do ask such "meaning" questions, and we are spiritual beings, each of our individual souls (*as opposed to bodies, which come from our parents) have to had been created by Spirit.

In conclusion, most atheists don't really think things to their conclusion. They're not stupid...they just haven't thought through all the implications of their belief - and it is belief, since he has no proof of "aliens"! He believes in them as a substitute for believing in God and angels...but again, he only moves the real question back 4 billion years. If these "aliens" were intelligent, then who created their intellectual souls?

As so on.

Only a someone can create a someone.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.

It's sad really. Some people are so desperate to deny God and place their faith in science that when science proves unable to provide the necessary answers, instead of turning back to God, they turn to science fiction for their answers. Sad.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2004.

Anyone who believes that we began as pond scum or were brought here from other planets is in dire need of psychotherapy. That, or needs to go to the circus as a clown.

-- Garret Ford (Parallax281457689@Yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.

You don't beleive in evolution then, Garret?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

Paying attention to such absurd things and wasting time on them, will slowly confirm one's mind to be as foolish. Instead pay attention to more and more what God says in Bible and through the Church, and spend much time praying. Invoke a deep hunger to experience God through prayer or retreats, etc. Just seek more and more the true presence of God, and nothing else will disturb you.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

"Anyone who believes that we began as pond scum or were brought here from other planets is in dire need of psychotherapy. That, or needs to go to the circus as a clown."

this is a little unfair. there is so much to the universe that we dont know about. most NASA scientists agree that there is significant evidence indicating that there was water on Mars. who is to say the Earth wasnt colonized by an ancient civilization from a nearby dying planet???? WE are space travelers, after all-- albeit only beginning to wander out of our corner of the universe.

genesis says (im reaching into my memory here): "the sons of heaven came down and mated with the daughters of earth". isnt this a startling verse?

as for pond scum-- maybe we DID evolve from single-celled creatures. it doesnt really violate anything weve been taught as christians, because in my opinion, the creation of Adam means the day the Lord gave humans a soul, a conscience, whatever. and if this means some alien (God) came to earth and made us a pet project, then so be it. the bible isnt exactly specific on these details.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.

Then the question here is twofold: how and by what or whom?

If the question is "by what"? Then we have to look at metaphysics as I did in my original post: the self-evident priciple of cause and effect forces us to conclude that "we", the human race, who are by nature "who's" not "whats", had to have been created by a WHO not a WHAT.

But if the question is "how" this Who made other who's... then of course you can posit either that we started via evolution from pond scum, or that we were made without antecedent organic building blocks... or that alien mammalian species from outerspace humanized either pond scum or monkeys... but either way, you have the non- atheist origin of man.

Ultimately, whether humanity rose from Earth alone or from the fruit of another planet, human souls come from a Spiritual source - not JUST thousands of years ago, but every day!

I also want to reiterate: atheists aren't stupid. Most pride themselves of being well read... but their problem is what they read and the limits they put arbitrarily on knowledge (*reducing things to physics) and their inability to think things through to the logical conclusion (such as cause and effect and the resulting morality of what is and what ought to be).

Calling them crazy or immoral just because they don't believe is not helpful. Respect them, and give them a convincing answer.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.

HI! My husband (who is a non practicing protestant) tells me that he has two specific views on how life started..one in being with the theory of evolution (afterall, how could one dispute the findings of dinosaurs, thus once and for all, giving PROOF that we started as tiny organisms of pond scum...)

{Objection one: This isnt true. Thouhg I actally follow evolution myself, it is NOT good logic to think that the EXISTANCE of Dinosaurs proves evolution. The fact that Dinosaurs exist does not prove anyhtign other than they exist, nor does it prove conclusively that we came form pond scum. Its bad logic to just beleive in evolution because we had dinosaurs... and still do in the form of Modern Birds, but thats another story...}-Zarove

OR that God is actually an alien being that came to this planet (and many others) to start life here (bringing an alien population with him)...and that during the times of Jesus, people were oppressed and needed something to believe in, thus JESUS was the icon of the day.

{Are you sure he's protestant/ He sounsds mor elike Raelian... beleivign God seeded thw oerds and was relaly a sicnetist form another planet...}-Zarove

(like the president or hitler etc.)

{No comment...}-Zarove

People wanted to believe in something/someone..NEEDED to believe, so they made Jesus what he was.. OK..now I have to listen to this HOGWASH all the time, (you can imagine the arguements in my house) but I want to know WHY there seems to be a growing theory of this ALIEN thing??

{Because we liv ein a confusign time where spectcular ideas sem to fit the more "Scnetifically minded" age we fit in, and we custom make what we want to beleive to suit the modern perceptons and ideas. }- Zarove

I can see how people might be lead by evolutionary theories but an alien?

{I agree/...}-Zarove

I have met at least 2 other people during this last year who seem to hold the same beliefs..Is the world going mad? Is this a popular thing nowadays?

{Its ntot hat popular, and you may want to check the Raelians out...}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 29, 2004.

Anti,

It makes for a good theory, but that's all it is.

-- Garret Ford (Parallax281457689@Yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

"who is to say the Earth wasnt colonized by an ancient civilization from a nearby dying planet????"

Actually God has revealed that He created man here, on this planet.

Anyway, it seems highly unlikely, to say the least, that a race capable of interstellar travel landed here and colonized earth, then devolved as a civilization to the level of Australopithecus, then evolved back to what we now consider "modern man". I am not necessarily speaking of biological evolution here - just the evolution of a human society. Also, where are the remnants of their technology? Presumably such an advanced race would have possessed technological wonders far beyond what we have today. Why don't we find evidence of this in archeological digs? Where are the spacecraft they landed in? etc. etc.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2004.

Paul, the answer is easy, before they degraded to primative savages, they beleived in recucling...That transgalactic Hyperdive engine componant just was BEGGING to be made into a flarbed of raw miniral to act as a base to their floor. Over time we mistook it for a natural miniral deposit.

-- ZARVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 30, 2004.

my point wasnt that theory specifically-- my point was that our history and how it relates to the creation is not evident to us. nor are many details about the being we call God.

eg., there is NO PROOF that we did NOT evolve, there is no proof adam was really created from dust (or however the story goes)...

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

Actually both the Bible and evolutionary biology make exactly the same claim - that the physical bodies of human beings were originally fashioned from non-living inorganic matter. A biologist might call it "the primordial soup". The Bible calls it "the dust of the earth". Biology simply explores the process through which God worked - whether a particular biologist acknowledges God's hand in the process or not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2004.

Garret,

I don't take evolution as my dogma, and it certainly has a lot of holes in it, but there is a hell of a lot more proof for it than there is for creationism.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.

Evolution is not opposed to creationism. Evolution is the study of change in already existing organisms. Obviously existence has to precede change. Therefore evolution demands creation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2004.

Joe, in your first post you state that "Only a someone can create a someone." If you are going to use that argument as a theory of creation doesnt it beg the question: who made God?

I means that if god created us he must also have had a creator and gods creator was created by another creator.We are back to elephants standing on turtles backs again.

-- bromis (bromis@retroactive.org), July 01, 2004.

Alternatively, if god doesn’t need a creator why do we?

-- bromis (bromis@retroactive.org), July 01, 2004.

Because we are finite. All finite things must have an origin. Therefore you are left with two possibilities - (1) an infinite series of finite causes and effects, stretching back into eternity, which is logically untenable since the series of causes itself would have no cause and no beginning; or (2) a single original cause which by definition must be infinite and eternal. That cause is God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 01, 2004.

The world, by which I mean the planet earth, is finite yet it has no beginning and no end if I were to set off walking in one direction I would never come to the edge of the world.

What im saying is, finite things do not always have a start and a finish it depends on how you define them.

Why is an infinite god preferable to infinite cause and effect? In terms of logic surely the latter is more preferable since we can at least measure cause and effect and define laws that govern them. Faith and logic in my opinion are diametrically opposed.

-- bromis (bromis@retroactive.org), July 01, 2004.

That is a totally irrelevant analogy. The fact that the surface of a sphere has no definable geometrical beginning point or end point has absolutely nothing to do with the question of finitude vs. infinitude. The sphere, regardless of its geometrical characteristics, exists; and the fact that it exists is absolute proof that it came into existence at some point in time. This is true of every finite entity. Finite things necessarily have a beginning and an end - a start and a finish - in TIME, not in geometry.

The reason that an infinite series of finite causes and effects is untenable is that it is a contradiction in terms - like a lightweight object made up of heavy components, or a white object made up of black parts. The whole necessarily reflects the characteristics of the component parts. If you build a wall out of red bricks, it's going to be a red wall. A series of finite causes and effects is necessarily finite because all of the components of which it is composed are finite. Something infinite obviously cannot be made up of finite components. Therefore, any series of finite components is itself finite by definition, and therefore must have both a cause and an origin in time. Therefore, the initial origin of all that is finite could not have been another finite cause. It was necessarily an infinite cause.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 01, 2004.

Bromis, can you pelase spell it God and not god. It was origionally een by atheist spelled God, becase it is used as a proper name. These days, it became popular among bashers of Chrisyainity to spell it god to sdiliberatley demena him. Thus you wil see sentences like " Then Moses tlaked with god, acordign tot he Bible." Moses will be Caped, god won't be.

I know you personally dont beleive n God, byt at leats bveleive in proper grammer, and show due respect for the concepts you are discussing.

I dotn go out of my way to demean the pagan gods of the Iliad, but peopel who critisise chrisainity go out of their way to bash god, who they feel they need to insult regularly.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 01, 2004.

Zarove, perhaps you should examine your own grammar before you criticize mine you have made the same mistake! Also, just because I’m asking difficult questions doesn’t mean I am trying to belittle anybody I’m simply looking for answers.

Paul, I’m sorry I don’t fully understand your argument finite things can come from infinite things eg 0.3333333333r X 3 =1 the same is true in reverse. An object that appears light can be composed of dark parts you have only to turn off your monitor and turn it back on again to prove that. The idea of absolute time was abandoned years ago when Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity, so to say that anything has a definite beginning and end in terms of time is nonsense.

-- bromis (bromis@retroactive.org), July 02, 2004.

Bromis, you aren't trying very hard!

finite things can come from infinite things eg 0.3333333333r X 3 =1 the same is true in reverse

The same way you arrive at .33333r will give you 1.00000000r one is totally one, 1/3 is totally 1/3. Just because by convention we don't *write* all the zeros after the one, doesn't mean they aren't there. That's how we know it's 1 and not 1.0000000000000000001.

An object that appears light can be composed of dark parts you have only to turn off your monitor and turn it back on again to prove that.

He said a WHITE object, not one that *appears* light. and looking at a white computer screen will show it made of red, green, and blue components, for one, and what you are seeing isn't the object itself, but the effect of energy upon it.

A better one would have been making a light object out of heavy components. You could have then said a space ship is heavy on earth, but light in space, and "proved" something, proved that is that he should have said it massed less or more instead of *weighed* ;-)

The idea of absolute time was abandoned years ago when Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity, so to say that anything has a definite beginning and end in terms of time is nonsense.

Come on, what is the difference between the *theory* of relativity and the *laws* of thermodynamics? Why is one called a theory and one a law? Answer that, and you answer to your conundrum will seem obvious to you.

And walking around the world? Surely you know that someday the world will cease to be. It might be in billions of years when it gets gobbled up in our sun's nova, but *someday* the Earth is history. "This too shall pass".

Zarove,

Bromis does have a good point about you criticizing someone else's spelling, since you refuse to police your own.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 02, 2004.

Zarove, perhaps you should examine your own grammar before you criticize mine you have made the same mistake!

{My speling is off but my Grammer is fine. I spelled god in lower case because you did, in representation of your own use of it, not because I charecteristiclaly spell it thus. I sell God with a Capitol G most of the time, and int he above post of mine, I spelled in in lower case because you did, to address a point.Mine was not a mistake, and yours is still insultign, no matter if you try to deflect blame onto me, which is standad of critics of soemthing...}- Zarove

Also, just because I’m asking difficult questions doesn’t mean I am trying to belittle anybody I’m simply looking for answers.

{You aren't even askign difficult queatsions. You may htink you are, and feel these things prove your poin that god doesnt exisy ( lower case is diliberate), but in reality atheistic comments liek yours are pretty standard fair and easily ovedrcome with basic logic.}-Zarove

Paul, I’m sorry I don’t fully understand your argument finite things can come from infinite things eg 0.3333333333r X 3 =1 the same is true in reverse. An object that appears light can be composed of dark parts you have only to turn off your monitor and turn it back on again to prove that. The idea of absolute time was abandoned years ago when Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity, so to say that anything has a definite beginning and end in terms of time is nonsense.

{See, this is why its ridiculous. My Monitor is dark coloued because of shading. If I ( Stupidly) removed the glass pain in the monitor, it woudl actually be clear... its made of glass. The Light we see when the monitor is on is generated from a source within the monitor housing, which shines through the transparent Monitor screen. Likewise, Rime beign relative isn't the same as time beign infinite. See, you aren't askign hard queatsions, you are just tryign to feel superior o the theists who beleive in God by pretendign science has obltorated any chace that intellegent people can adhere to the beleif.

My ansswer is cursory, but still applicable, and I am sure both Paul's on this baord will make much better explanations, one is even a Physisist. I am just an ex reporter.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 02, 2004.

We can choose to represent numbers anyway we wish, my point is no less valid. “What you are seeing isn't the object itself, but the effect of energy upon it.” That statement is flawed, the only way you can see any objects at all is because of the effect light energy has on them. Without that we would see nothing. You talked yourself out of that one.

There isn’t really any major difference between a law and a theory. The difference is essentially our ability to test predictions made by those theories or laws. Since it is much easier to observe and quantify the total amount of energy in a closed system and to observe any changes in the state of that energy than it is to observe the slowing of time as you approach the speed of light, Thermodynamics is called a law and general relativity is called a theory. But the argument that because something is a theory and not an observable fact does not change anything, if a theory holds true for all the available data it must be considered to be the most accurate representation of the real state, and until disproved it will remain thus.

Sorry, but I cant budge on anything i said in my previous post

Finally Zarove I know several people whom I regard as being far more intelligent that myself who are also deeply religious, I can’t pretend to understand it especially when I come across individuals such as you who immediately become insulting as soon as they meet anybody who doesn’t share their exact views. And my arse you spelt god on purpose.

-- bromis (bromis@retroactive.org), July 05, 2004.

Uh.....Arthur C. Clarke writes science-fiction, not Genesis.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.

bromis,

Sorry, but I cant budge on anything i said in my previous post

Well bromis, that's too bad, but I'll try again.

We can choose to represent numbers anyway we wish, my point is no less valid.

You originally said:

Paul, I’m sorry I don’t fully understand your argument finite things can come from infinite things eg 0.3333333333r X 3 =1 the same is true in reverse.

The point is your original post (the one immediately above), is *wrong*. What you consider finite (the 1) is just as infinite as the 0.33333r. Just because by convention we don't write 1.0r, all those zeros are still there. My point was your example is wrong. You can learn from that.

That statement is flawed, the only way you can see any objects at all is because of the effect light energy has on them. Without that we would see nothing. You talked yourself out of that one.

You are also incorrect here, but in a different way. There's a big difference between the *reflection* of light, and the *transmission* of light that one would have in a monitor. Try a physics course sometime, and again, this is something you can learn from.

There isn’t really any major difference between a law and a theory.

Yes there is! Something is called a law if it is NEVER expected to change, a theory IS expected to change the moment the current data don't fit it. There is a huge, conceptual difference here. No one expects 2 apples plus 2 apples to ever equal anything other than 4 apples, but theories? They change every day. You could also say there's no difference between hot and cold water, after all, starting at absolute zero and going to the temperature of the sun, the change in temperature isn't much. To us however, if you jump into a vat of scalding water, you will be very much affected. How we view the world is important, bromis, and if it you don't care whether your definitions of the world are accurate or not, it shouldn't suprise you if you have incorrect beliefs interwoven with correct ones. That's not good, you should try to believe and understand things that are *true*, and logically consistent, not just things that appeal to you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 05, 2004.

We can choose to represent numbers anyway we wish, my point is no less valid. “What you are seeing isn't the object itself, but the effect of energy upon it.” That statement is flawed, the only way you can see any objects at all is because of the effect light energy has on them. Without that we would see nothing. You talked yourself out of that one.

{The statement isn't flawed, as eumerated above. The screen doesn't just appear dark, then magiclaly appear bright. Lighr emenates out of the screen by a piwer source, which is not preasently sendign energy to the screen when the monitor is off, this is why it goes dark. Just like I cannot look out my living room window at night and see anythign but utter blackness, but if I turn on my porch light, I can now see out the same window...}-Zarove

There isn’t really any major difference between a law and a theory. The difference is essentially our ability to test predictions made by those theories or laws. Since it is much easier to observe and quantify the total amount of energy in a closed system and to observe any changes in the state of that energy than it is to observe the slowing of time as you approach the speed of light, Thermodynamics is called a law and general relativity is called a theory. But the argument that because something is a theory and not an observable fact does not change anything, if a theory holds true for all the available data it must be considered to be the most accurate representation of the real state, and until disproved it will remain thus.

{As elaborated above, this is false. A Theory is what we use to describe things we don;t fully understand, in a way that fits the Data. This way, we have a workign modle with which to test the information and elarn more. A law is what we have tested and found to be true. We may be mistaken on soem things we call laws, but in general Laws seem to be consistantly demonstratable, where theories aren't. IE, I cannot demonstrate superstring theory, but I can demonstrate Gravity.}-Zarove

Sorry, but I cant budge on anything i said in my previous post

{Then you arent relaly here to learn or listen, but rather to force your own eiw.}-Zarove

Finally Zarove I know several people whom I regard as being far more intelligent that myself who are also deeply religious, I can’t pretend to understand it especially when I come across individuals such as you who immediately become insulting as soon as they meet anybody who doesn’t share their exact views.

{I did not become emidiately insultign when I came into contact with someone who did not share my veiws exaclty. Indeed, if you read this board, you will learn that I am not Cahtolic and have a worldveiw that is different than the Cahtolic world veiw. I have been permitted to post here for over a year. Tbhe reason I have been allowed and others have been banned is because others became insultign and degraded the Cahtolic Faith, which I have remained repectful of in all my dealings here. I have also defended Mormonism when false statements are made in accusation of that religion even though I am not a Mormon. I have defended various beleifs when they have been misrepresented and endeavour for accuracy in my posts.

That said, I did not even insul you in my own post, I asked you not to do soemthign I found insulting. Projecting from that an insult form me to you is, of course, ridiculous. I did nt ACTUALLY insult you at all, I merely asked you not to do soemthing that I find insulting. This is only unreasonable because you do not wish to change how you do things to accomodate anyone elses sensabilities. In short, you are intolerent.You will say you aren't intolerent and hat this i an insult, but in reality, this is my assertation of you. You justify your own actions and villify my intent. You do not admit even the possibility that what yo do or say may be wrong, or that your wordign may have acutlasly offended me, rather, you claim I attacked you, because I cannot abide peopel with different beleifs than myself. A claim which is absolutely lacking in foundation when applied to me.}-Zarove

And my arse you spelt god on purpose.

{I did it for emphasis. In addition t taking a basic Physics course, perhaps you ought to also take a cours ein composition and english liturature. Or, you can continue to pretend I did the same thign you did and am a Hypocrite who attacks others for not agreeign with exaclty my eiws. From past expeirnce I beleive you wll do the Latter, but if you do the former I shall be pleasantly surprised.}

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 05, 2004.

Mormonism is actually one of the religions that believes that God is an alien. Mormonism states that God is a man from another planet and was raised to godhood (capitalize?) because he led a good Mormon life. And he has his goddess wife to make plenty of spirit babies who then get sent to earth and are born as humans. And if you lead a good Mormon life, you too can be a god and create your own planet. My source on all this is carm.org, but I don't know how reliable it is because it says false things about Catholicism. So if anyone wants to email the creator of the site and correct him on his views on Catholicism, I would be much obliged. (I've already tried, but he emails me back with the same excuses.)

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), November 12, 2004.

Let me start by saying that I do believe in God. However I find it funny how people can believe in one thing that "could" be seen as crazy such as an all powerful God in the heavens and not believe in another such crazy idea such as alien life.

You people have to stop taking the bible WORD FOR WORD. I hope everyone knows that adam and eve was just a story. Or else we'd all be related! The world could have began with the big bang or by aliens etc.. But if it was created by either then who do you think was behind it? probably God.

So for the starter of this thread thinking her husband is mad for his beliefs really needs to step back and think what her beliefs may look like to others who don't share them!

-- someguy (tripwire1@hotmail.com), January 25, 2005.

SOMEHUY-The prblem you face is you have no ide what peopel beleive. I have no problem aceptign the posisbility of alein life. such has not been proven, but I don discount ut. I donthtink anyone on this thread said it was outright imposisble.

What we where syagn was her husbands vewis where insane...

-- ZAROFF (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 25, 2005.