Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet

[Bad Bob]

Fun with the Bible

Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26 - New King James Version

1) our image, our likeness ~ Religionists have a tough time with this one. We look like God

2) Our ~ Mentioned twice. Not my image, my likeness. How many Gods are there?

It sounds like God was talking to an audience of other humanlike gods. Did they then vote?

He was talking to the Angels which he also made.

King James? You know he didn't do it himself, right?

 

[Bad Bob]

RetiredGySgt

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/upl...iles/2011_summer/BiT_Summer_2011_Campbell.pdf
The origins of the translation that we know as the King James Version lie in the Hampton Court Conference of January 1604, when King James I assembled a group of bishops and moderate Puritans to discuss the grievances of Puritans who thought that the Church of England retained too many ceremonial vestiges of its Catholic past. The Puritans were unable to secure the reforms that they desired, but one proposal not on the agenda was to prove of historic importance. On the second day of the conference (16 January), according to William Barlow’s Sum and Substance of the Conference (1604), John Rainolds – the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford – proposed ‘that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those that were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original’. This account is puzzling, because it refers to the Great Bible that was in use in the early sixteenth century rather than the Bishops’ Bible (1568, revised 1572) which was the version used in England in 1604. Clearly something has been lost in the retelling, but whatever was said, the king was happy to take up the suggestion. Indeed, three years earlier, when, as James VI of Scotland, the king had attended the General Assembly of the Kirk at Burntisland (Fife), he had supported the idea of a new translation......

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because it's too far away for our puny brains to find or see.

Because instead of a space race we are in an arms race and war with another religion.

Why? Because we are primitive and new.

We are getting there. Be patient. We would never find out if all humans were as negative as you. Luckily we have smart ones who are positive

While the human race would, indeed, be better off focusing on exploration than war, the fact remains human nature is still very primitive, tribal and competitive.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out.

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” – Douglas Adams

Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms. That's all it means.

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue. Perhaps we're missing something.

Ya we are missing the ability through technology to check distant systems with anything remotely like an ability to tell if life resides on any planets.

SETI is pretty good at listening for radio signals or another signs that an advanced civilization could send, but agreed we don't presently have a means to visually determine if there is life on other worlds.

Life on other planets may not be technologically advanced. Or it may just be starting out. You assume that the nearer systems must have intelligent life with no basis for that to be assumed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/upl...iles/2011_summer/BiT_Summer_2011_Campbell.pdf
The origins of the translation that we know as the King James Version lie in the Hampton Court Conference of January 1604, when King James I assembled a group of bishops and moderate Puritans to discuss the grievances of Puritans who thought that the Church of England retained too many ceremonial vestiges of its Catholic past. The Puritans were unable to secure the reforms that they desired, but one proposal not on the agenda was to prove of historic importance. On the second day of the conference (16 January), according to William Barlow’s Sum and Substance of the Conference (1604), John Rainolds – the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford – proposed ‘that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those that were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original’. This account is puzzling, because it refers to the Great Bible that was in use in the early sixteenth century rather than the Bishops’ Bible (1568, revised 1572) which was the version used in England in 1604. Clearly something has been lost in the retelling, but whatever was said, the king was happy to take up the suggestion. Indeed, three years earlier, when, as James VI of Scotland, the king had attended the General Assembly of the Kirk at Burntisland (Fife), he had supported the idea of a new translation......

The King James is the most accurate and it is the only acceptable Bible as far as I am concerned, none of your nay saying or other information will change that. If I must I will simply rely on FAITH as to why I believe that.

 

[Bad Bob]

While the human race would, indeed, be better off focusing on exploration than war, the fact remains human nature is still very primitive, tribal and competitive.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out.

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” – Douglas Adams

Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms. That's all it means.

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue. Perhaps we're missing something.

Ya we are missing the ability through technology to check distant systems with anything remotely like an ability to tell if life resides on any planets.

SETI is pretty good at listening for radio signals or another signs that an advanced civilization could send, but agreed we don't presently have a means to visually determine if there is life on other worlds.

Life on other planets may not be technologically advanced. Or it may just be starting out. You assume that the nearer systems must have intelligent life with no basis for that to be assumed.

Our star formed late in the formation of the Milky Way galaxy. We're millions of years behind those stars closer to the center.

Estimating the Age of the Milky Way - Universe Today
.....The Sun and its planetary system was formed about 4,560 million years ago, but many other stars formed much earlier. Some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way are found in large stellar clusters, in particular in “globular clusters” (PR Photo 23a/04), so called because of their spheroidal shape.

Stars belonging to a globular cluster were born together, from the same cloud and at the same time. Since stars of different masses evolve at different rates, it is possible to measure the age of globular clusters with a reasonably good accuracy. The oldest ones are found to be more than 13,000 million years old.....

 

[Bad Bob]

RetiredGySgt

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/upl...iles/2011_summer/BiT_Summer_2011_Campbell.pdf
The origins of the translation that we know as the King James Version lie in the Hampton Court Conference of January 1604, when King James I assembled a group of bishops and moderate Puritans to discuss the grievances of Puritans who thought that the Church of England retained too many ceremonial vestiges of its Catholic past. The Puritans were unable to secure the reforms that they desired, but one proposal not on the agenda was to prove of historic importance. On the second day of the conference (16 January), according to William Barlow’s Sum and Substance of the Conference (1604), John Rainolds – the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford – proposed ‘that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those that were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original’. This account is puzzling, because it refers to the Great Bible that was in use in the early sixteenth century rather than the Bishops’ Bible (1568, revised 1572) which was the version used in England in 1604. Clearly something has been lost in the retelling, but whatever was said, the king was happy to take up the suggestion. Indeed, three years earlier, when, as James VI of Scotland, the king had attended the General Assembly of the Kirk at Burntisland (Fife), he had supported the idea of a new translation......

The King James is the most accurate and it is the only acceptable Bible as far as I am concerned, none of your nay saying or other information will change that. If I must I will simply rely on FAITH as to why I believe that.

Obviously you're as free to believe that Bible is the one and only version as others are to believe it's not. I was just curious about your beliefs and reasoning.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out.

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” – Douglas Adams

Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms. That's all it means.

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue. Perhaps we're missing something.

Ya we are missing the ability through technology to check distant systems with anything remotely like an ability to tell if life resides on any planets.

SETI is pretty good at listening for radio signals or another signs that an advanced civilization could send, but agreed we don't presently have a means to visually determine if there is life on other worlds.

Life on other planets may not be technologically advanced. Or it may just be starting out. You assume that the nearer systems must have intelligent life with no basis for that to be assumed.

Our star formed late in the formation of the Milky Way galaxy. We're millions of years behind those stars closer to the center.

Estimating the Age of the Milky Way - Universe Today
.....The Sun and its planetary system was formed about 4,560 million years ago, but many other stars formed much earlier. Some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way are found in large stellar clusters, in particular in “globular clusters” (PR Photo 23a/04), so called because of their spheroidal shape.

Stars belonging to a globular cluster were born together, from the same cloud and at the same time. Since stars of different masses evolve at different rates, it is possible to measure the age of globular clusters with a reasonably good accuracy. The oldest ones are found to be more than 13,000 million years old.....

But not to the stars closest to us. And I suggest you reread your science if the signal was far enough away chances are it missed us entirely or was so degraded we can not recognize it as a signal. Further just because life may evolve on NUMEROUS planets does not mean intelligent tool using life evolved capable of space travel or science.

 

[MarkDuffy]

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out.

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” – Douglas Adams

Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms. That's all it means.

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue. Perhaps we're missing something.

Ya we are missing the ability through technology to check distant systems with anything remotely like an ability to tell if life resides on any planets.

SETI is pretty good at listening for radio signals or another signs that an advanced civilization could send, but agreed we don't presently have a means to visually determine if there is life on other worlds.

Life on other planets may not be technologically advanced. Or it may just be starting out. You assume that the nearer systems must have intelligent life with no basis for that to be assumed.

Our star formed late in the formation of the Milky Way galaxy. We're millions of years behind those stars closer to the center.

Estimating the Age of the Milky Way - Universe Today
.....The Sun and its planetary system was formed about 4,560 million years ago, but many other stars formed much earlier. Some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way are found in large stellar clusters, in particular in “globular clusters” (PR Photo 23a/04), so called because of their spheroidal shape.

Stars belonging to a globular cluster were born together, from the same cloud and at the same time. Since stars of different masses evolve at different rates, it is possible to measure the age of globular clusters with a reasonably good accuracy. The oldest ones are found to be more than 13,000 million years old.....

Globular clusters are halo objects, much farther from the center than our sun. They are the remnants of the milky way disk formation. The leftovers, the losers.

The sun is a population I metal-rich star. Globulars are older population II stars, extremely light in heavy elements (basically pure hydrogen with some helium from hydrogen burning). Population I stars are made from population II supernovae.

Yeah, the numbers are backwards, but we were idiots when we named them.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

In Genesis it is clear that Cain went and lived with OTHER people. The bible is not a source to claim only those God Created were on the Earth. As for 6000 years only a fool believes that as we have reams of data to prove life existed before then

6000 years ago ADAM was CREATED. The earth was RESTORED, not created 6000 years ago.

Adam was given "the spirit of Man." Read into that what you will about the other humanoids on earth at the time.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms. That's all it means.

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue. Perhaps we're missing something.

Ya we are missing the ability through technology to check distant systems with anything remotely like an ability to tell if life resides on any planets.

SETI is pretty good at listening for radio signals or another signs that an advanced civilization could send, but agreed we don't presently have a means to visually determine if there is life on other worlds.

Life on other planets may not be technologically advanced. Or it may just be starting out. You assume that the nearer systems must have intelligent life with no basis for that to be assumed.

Our star formed late in the formation of the Milky Way galaxy. We're millions of years behind those stars closer to the center.

Estimating the Age of the Milky Way - Universe Today
.....The Sun and its planetary system was formed about 4,560 million years ago, but many other stars formed much earlier. Some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way are found in large stellar clusters, in particular in “globular clusters” (PR Photo 23a/04), so called because of their spheroidal shape.

Stars belonging to a globular cluster were born together, from the same cloud and at the same time. Since stars of different masses evolve at different rates, it is possible to measure the age of globular clusters with a reasonably good accuracy. The oldest ones are found to be more than 13,000 million years old.....

But not to the stars closest to us. And I suggest you reread your science if the signal was far enough away chances are it missed us entirely or was so degraded we can not recognize it as a signal. Further just because life may evolve on NUMEROUS planets does not mean intelligent tool using life evolved capable of space travel or science.

The center of the galaxy is waay too hostile to have life, agreed. Life occurs in the safe outer spiral arms.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Fun with the Bible

Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26 - New King James Version

1) our image, our likeness ~ Religionists have a tough time with this one. We look like God

2) Our ~ Mentioned twice. Not my image, my likeness. How many Gods are there?

It sounds like God was talking to an audience of other humanlike gods. Did they then vote?

He was talking to the Angels which he also made.

When did God create the angels?

So angels before the universe. Ahem. It's getting really crowded before creation.

Perhaps you can quote the Bible where he created angels?

 

[MarkDuffy]

In Genesis it is clear that Cain went and lived with OTHER people. The bible is not a source to claim only those God Created were on the Earth. As for 6000 years only a fool believes that as we have reams of data to prove life existed before then

6000 years ago ADAM was CREATED. The earth was RESTORED, not created 6000 years ago.

Adam was given "the spirit of Man." Read into that what you will about the other humanoids on earth at the time.

Oh so this is the new creationist myth. It is only Adam @ 6K. LOL

Did the rest of the humans rent Eden to them?

 

[MarkDuffy]

The modern IDers have adjusted their timelines. You creationists need to catch up with God.

 

[MarkDuffy]

As for Genesis, only if you take the Bible literally.

He meant what He said.

Who? The Bible was canonized by a group of guys in 325AD, it wasn't handed down by God as the Ten Commandments were to Moses. Do you only accept the King James interpretation?

As a matter of Fact that IS the only version I accept.

Why? Why is only the King James version the only acceptable version of the Bible?

Do you take Genesis literally? That the world is only about 6000 years old? That God created Adam then Eve? Who did their children mate with to have grandchildren for Adam and Eve?

How about Noah's family after the Flood?

Pick a version, troll. Knock yourself out

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Should we remind him that the Bible does not say 6000 years old? Naw

 

[MarkDuffy]

RetiredGySgt

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/upl...iles/2011_summer/BiT_Summer_2011_Campbell.pdf
The origins of the translation that we know as the King James Version lie in the Hampton Court Conference of January 1604, when King James I assembled a group of bishops and moderate Puritans to discuss the grievances of Puritans who thought that the Church of England retained too many ceremonial vestiges of its Catholic past. The Puritans were unable to secure the reforms that they desired, but one proposal not on the agenda was to prove of historic importance. On the second day of the conference (16 January), according to William Barlow’s Sum and Substance of the Conference (1604), John Rainolds – the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford – proposed ‘that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those that were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original’. This account is puzzling, because it refers to the Great Bible that was in use in the early sixteenth century rather than the Bishops’ Bible (1568, revised 1572) which was the version used in England in 1604. Clearly something has been lost in the retelling, but whatever was said, the king was happy to take up the suggestion. Indeed, three years earlier, when, as James VI of Scotland, the king had attended the General Assembly of the Kirk at Burntisland (Fife), he had supported the idea of a new translation......

The King James is the most accurate and it is the only acceptable Bible as far as I am concerned, none of your nay saying or other information will change that. If I must I will simply rely on FAITH as to why I believe that.

True, except for the politics. Lots of very cool gospels were ignored.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Oh so this is the new creationist myth. It is only Adam @ 6K. L

There are many theories. We don't all have the same beliefs. I'm an advocate for this one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fun with the Bible

Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26 - New King James Version

1) our image, our likeness ~ Religionists have a tough time with this one. We look like God

2) Our ~ Mentioned twice. Not my image, my likeness. How many Gods are there?

It sounds like God was talking to an audience of other humanlike gods. Did they then vote?

He was talking to the Angels which he also made.

When did God create the angels?

So angels before the universe. Ahem. It's getting really crowded before creation.

Perhaps you can quote the Bible where he created angels?

Jesus was the first one he created and he made many more including Satan.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Oh so this is the new creationist myth. It is only Adam @ 6K. L

There are many theories. We don't all have the same beliefs. I'm an advocate for this one.

You do not need to believe Bishop Ussher's math. He made a good guess that fit the data of the time. The easy explanation is God is a busy guy. He did not put everyone into the Bible. It helps to explain the outside Eden creation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh so this is the new creationist myth. It is only Adam @ 6K. L

There are many theories. We don't all have the same beliefs. I'm an advocate for this one.

You do not need to believe Bishop Ussher's math. He made a good guess that fit the data of the time. The easy explanation is God is a busy guy. He did not put everyone into the Bible. It helps to explain the outside Eden creation.

The Bible clearly states that man can not know God's time. So no one can FIGURE OUT when Adam was created. But as to other Humans God was clear on that too, Cain went to live with them.

 

[Correll]

Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?

60% of the fed budget is mandatory entitlement spending and that percentage is forever growing.

There will be no big space program in our lifetimes because of that.

Deal with it.