Future Moon and Mars Bases.

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

All species are designed to self replicate, including humans. What a complete bizarre thing to say. 

 

 

You think species are designed?  What religion are you?

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

You think species are designed?  What religion are you?

 

Is DNA not a design? Self-designed of course.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Is DNA not a design? Self-designed of course.

 

He said "designed".  That's the kind of shite you hear from the people who used to be creationists.

[Space Mackerel]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

You think species are designed?  What religion are you?

 

Im agonostc. 

Designed not being the right word. It’s a self conscious belief to pro create, it’s in every living thing. 

 

Why do you not care what happens to you in this life or fellow homosapiens after? 

[ri Alban]

16 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

As a Christian yourself, and I hold my hands up and say I’m agnostic, what would you think of discovering alien life forms? 

We probably came from mars via meteorite.

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Im agonostc. 

Designed not being the right word. It’s a self conscious belief to pro create, it’s in every living thing. 

 

Why do you not care what happens to you in this life or fellow homosapiens after? 

 Capitalism.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Im agonostc. 

Designed not being the right word. It’s a self conscious belief to pro create, it’s in every living thing. 

 

Why do you not care what happens to you in this life or fellow homosapiens after? 

 

It's a fair point that Ulysses made though (if I am understanding it correctly). We're "designed" to seek survival as individuals, not necessarily to seek the survival of others (unless it improves our own chances of survival). Extending self-survival to the survival of a whole species is a huge leap.

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

It's a fair point that Ulysses made though (if I am understanding it correctly). We're "designed" to seek survival as individuals, not necessarily to seek the survival of others (unless it improves our own chances of survival). Extending self-survival to the survival of a whole species is a huge leap.

That's exactly it. Its either you or I if it comes to it. Self preservation not human reservation. I meant preservation but that sounds good.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

16 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

As a Christian yourself, and I hold my hands up and say I’m agnostic, what would you think of discovering alien life forms? 

 

For myself, my religion has nothing to do with how I would see alien life forms. I don't take the "in his own image" stuff literally (or much of anything in early Genesis literally, for that matter). Finding alien life would be similar to finding the weird stuff we find at deep ocean depths. Just fascinating.

 

I'm far more intrigued by it as a scientist -- we really have nothing to go on besides our imaginations on what "life" even means outside of the context of earth. It's all carbon and protein based here, but as for what else there could be, Star Trek is about as good a source as any.

 

The craziest, "nobody really thinks it's that likely but we can't rule it out" case is that life may have even evolved first on Mars and been introduced to earth (in single-cellular form or not much above it) as something that got blasted off the Martian surface by an impact and turned into a meteor, which then inoculated Earth. Again, almost no way to prove or disprove it at this point, unless we get to Mars and find actual traces of cellular life there.

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

That's exactly it. Its either you or I if it comes to it. Self preservation not human reservation. 

 

It will be me then. Sorry, ri.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

It will be me then. Sorry, ri.

No apology required, it's fake news.

[ri Alban]

27 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

As a Christian yourself, and I hold my hands up and say I’m agnostic, what would you think of discovering alien life forms? 

It would probably add to his cred, tbf.

[Space Mackerel]

15 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

It's a fair point that Ulysses made though (if I am understanding it correctly). We're "designed" to seek survival as individuals, not necessarily to seek the survival of others (unless it improves our own chances of survival). Extending self-survival to the survival of a whole species is a huge leap.

 

I didn’t understand a word, sounds a bit sad and lonely. Given up sort of chat.

 

All species are not designed per say, but pre-programmed to pro create and evolve. If it wasn’t the case then we wouldn’t be here. 

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I didn’t understand a word, sounds a bit sad and lonely. Given up sort of chat.

 

All species are not designed per say, but pre-programmed to pro create and evolve. If it wasn’t the case then we wouldn’t be here. 

Well if the alphabet army get their way, we're (excuse the pun) fecked.

[Space Mackerel]

16 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

For myself, my religion has nothing to do with how I would see alien life forms. I don't take the "in his own image" stuff literally (or much of anything in early Genesis literally, for that matter). Finding alien life would be similar to finding the weird stuff we find at deep ocean depths. Just fascinating.

 

I'm far more intrigued by it as a scientist -- we really have nothing to go on besides our imaginations on what "life" even means outside of the context of earth. It's all carbon and protein based here, but as for what else there could be, Star Trek is about as good a source as any.

 

The craziest, "nobody really thinks it's that likely but we can't rule it out" case is that life may have even evolved first on Mars and been introduced to earth (in single-cellular form or not much above it) as something that got blasted off the Martian surface by an impact and turned into a meteor, which then inoculated Earth. Again, almost no way to prove or disprove it at this point, unless we get to Mars and find actual traces of cellular life there.

 

I get the whole consciousness and what’s makes us all individuals, guess I believe there is some sort of inner spirit/soul within every living thing be it human or animal or plant etc. 

 

There will be a time in thousands of years from now that religion (to an extent), science and medicine will be seen as so backwards, that it will be seen as witch doctors are seen today. 

[Ulysses]

4 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I didn’t understand a word, sounds a bit sad and lonely. Given up sort of chat.

 

All species are not designed per say, but pre-programmed to pro create and evolve. If it wasn’t the case then we wouldn’t be here. 

 

Sad and lonely?   I doubt those words can have any meaning in the context of this issue.

 

Previous posters above have explained where I'm coming from.  Living things have a strong tendency or in some cases urge to reproduce, but that doesn't drive the continued existence of species; it drives the continued existence and replication of DNA.  For as long as there has been life on Earth there has been DNA, but the species, the phenotypes which carry the DNA have always existed temporarily - for millions of years sometimes, but temporarily nonetheless.  If genes or collections of genes can replicate themselves within a current species or phenotype structure they will do so.  If for some reason the environment doesn't suit that species or phenotype structure then it will change.  Stuff that works well and leads to reproduction will stay, stuff that really works will be emphasised, and stuff that works badly or is ill-adapted will cause early deaths, a lack of reproduction, and ultimately either extinction of a species or evolution to something new. 

 

So while all life on Earth has the effect of preserving and reproducing DNA, it doesn't have the effect of preserving or propagating species - or at best only propagates them for a time.  Though there is a strong force driving individual living things to reproduce, that's not a drive to preserve or propagate a species.  That's why I'm saying that an individual fox, bird or human will desperately try to survive and reproduce, but its interest in doing so only runs to itself and its own line of succession, and that's not the same as an interest in preserving foxes, birds or humans as species.

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

It's a fair point that Ulysses made though (if I am understanding it correctly). We're "designed" to seek survival as individuals, not necessarily to seek the survival of others (unless it improves our own chances of survival). Extending self-survival to the survival of a whole species is a huge leap.

 

Correct.  Animals are driven to pass along their own genes, and that includes humans.  Survival of the species doesn't enter the heads of any animals except, to a limited extent, humans.  Richard Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene, is worth a read for those who want to learn more.

 

The best example I can think of, is the behaviour of lions.  If a male lion takes over another lion's pride, the first thing he does is to eat all the cubs.  That puts the females into heat, he impregnates them, and his genes get passed along to the next generation.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

54 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I get the whole consciousness and what’s makes us all individuals, guess I believe there is some sort of inner spirit/soul within every living thing be it human or animal or plant etc. 

 

There will be a time in thousands of years from now that religion (to an extent), science and medicine will be seen as so backwards, that it will be seen as witch doctors are seen today. 

 

Getting much further into this would take us a long ways away from the moon and Mars, I think. For now I'll just say that IMO religion, spirituality, whatever at its best should strike in us a feeling of awe and humility, of our tiny place in the cosmos, but at the same time the importance of our own actions in how we define ourselves. So from a practical matter, religion only intercedes here in how we'd relate to alien life.

 

It's a cold and lonely thought but one I have a hard time avoiding -- to me it's overwhelmingly likely to the point of certainty that there are uncountable numbers of other forms of life somewhere in time and space out there, but the magnitude of space between us means we'll probably come into existence as a species and go extinct without ever making any kind of contact with even one other one.

 

My general sense has been that the closer one gets to the hard scientific facts in these questions, the less reassurance and optimism is available. Hope is necessary for life and also requires a degree of irrationality.

[Space Mackerel]

24 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Getting much further into this would take us a long ways away from the moon and Mars, I think. For now I'll just say that IMO religion, spirituality, whatever at its best should strike in us a feeling of awe and humility, of our tiny place in the cosmos, but at the same time the importance of our own actions in how we define ourselves. So from a practical matter, religion only intercedes here in how we'd relate to alien life.

 

It's a cold and lonely thought but one I have a hard time avoiding -- to me it's overwhelmingly likely to the point of certainty that there are uncountable numbers of other forms of life somewhere in time and space out there, but the magnitude of space between us means we'll probably come into existence as a species and go extinct without ever making any kind of contact with even one other one.

 

My general sense has been that the closer one gets to the hard scientific facts in these questions, the less reassurance and optimism is available. Hope is necessary for life and also requires a degree of irrationality.

Can I ask what religion you follow UA, there’s a few of them out in the US.

As I said, I’m agnostic and respect the people who understand the spiritual way of thinking.

[ri Alban]

34 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Can I ask what religion you follow UA, there’s a few of them out in the US.

As I said, I’m agnostic and respect the people who understand the spiritual way of thinking.

Do u use DMT

[Space Mackerel]

6 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Do u use DMT

 

Nah, I just respect people views and experiences of life. I tend to wave away evidence because it’s on the tv.  

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

Can I ask what religion you follow UA, there’s a few of them out in the US.

As I said, I’m agnostic and respect the people who understand the spiritual way of thinking.

 

Presbyterian Church (USA). Naturally not everyone in the church agrees with my outlook on Christianity, to put it mildly.

 

But I at least have the credential that my wife is a PCUSA pastor, for whatever that's worth. (not a huge amount)

[Space Mackerel]

20 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Presbyterian Church (USA). Naturally not everyone in the church agrees with my outlook on Christianity, to put it mildly.

 

But I at least have the credential that my wife is a PCUSA pastor, for whatever that's worth. (not a huge amount)

 

 

My old man said to me when I was a nipper...

 

”If we are all the same then the world would be boring”...

 

and fitba forums would be too. 

 

 

 

[John Gentleman]

7 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Getting much further into this would take us a long ways away from the moon and Mars, I think. For now I'll just say that IMO religion, spirituality, whatever at its best should strike in us a feeling of awe and humility, of our tiny place in the cosmos, but at the same time the importance of our own actions in how we define ourselves. So from a practical matter, religion only intercedes here in how we'd relate to alien life.

 

It's a cold and lonely thought but one I have a hard time avoiding -- to me it's overwhelmingly likely to the point of certainty that there are uncountable numbers of other forms of life somewhere in time and space out there, but the magnitude of space between us means we'll probably come into existence as a species and go extinct without ever making any kind of contact with even one other one.

 

My general sense has been that the closer one gets to the hard scientific facts in these questions, the less reassurance and optimism is available. Hope is necessary for life and also requires a degree of irrationality.

The Drake Equation

You'll note this equation only applies to our galaxy (Milky Way). It could also equally be applied to our bigger neighbour, Andromeda. Plus the billions upon billions upon billions.....

[Nookie Bear]

On 18/01/2018 at 20:07, Space Mackerel said:

NASA was formed and still is as a major arm of the massive US military machine. Anyone who thinks they are out to save the human race at this moment in time is utterly deluded.

 

Thats what I dont understand here.  The OP is clearly anti capitalist (if I am not mistaken!) so I don't get he enthusiasm for this kind of expenditure. Direct the money and talent into fixing the more tangible problems that we face. 

 

Lets face it, this is not being done for the common good..

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 hours ago, John Gentleman said:

The Drake Equation

You'll note this equation only applies to our galaxy (Milky Way). It could also equally be applied to our bigger neighbour, Andromeda. Plus the billions upon billions upon billions.....

 

But even if there were life in the Alpha Centauri system (very unlikely as a one-off), there's still the fact that 1) we not only have no technology capable of even getting a probe to Alpha Centauri, we don't even have a viable theory for how such a probe might get there, 2) we *might* be able to create a radio signal powerful enough to be noticed by any life there, but they'd have to have technology to receive it and be listening at the right time (more on that in a second), and 3) if we did manage to establish contact simply over radio channel , any conversation that started with "Hello!" would have to wait a decade to get the "Hi, how are you?" response back.

 

Now add to that the fact that earth is 4.6 billion years old, humans have only had *any* kind of "civilization" for .0002% of that time, and only had the capacity to listen to or generate radio waves for 1% of our "civilized" time. Now add that given our abuse of the biosphere, we could be well on to the latter half of the time of civilization right now, with less time in front of us than behind us since the establishment of Ur as a city. Making the basic assumption that intelligence on Alpha Centauri was roughly as rare and self-destructive as it is on Earth, what are the odds that our infinitesimal window of awareness corresponds to their infinitesimal window of awareness?

 

So as I said, overwhelmingly likely that it's out there (as in probabilities approaching 1), and overwhelmingly likely that we'll walk the length of our existence without ever finding them (also probabilities approaching 1).

 

Again, sorry to be the cheerful one around here...

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Thats what I dont understand here.  The OP is clearly anti capitalist (if I am not mistaken!) so I don't get he enthusiasm for this kind of expenditure. Direct the money and talent into fixing the more tangible problems that we face. 

 

Lets face it, this is not being done for the common good..

Sweeping generalisation there on me being anti capitalist. I am anti anything that is  corrupt and treats people   like shite, be that religions in the name of their gods or politicians in the name of their political party manifestos. 

 

  Indeed all those anti capitalists in Russia must be raging at their nations space commitments and achievements.

 

This was a thread of HUMAN advancements in space explorations , politics is one big cancer and should be well away from future space discoveries and advancements.

 

All future space advancements comes with  possible benefits to, medicine, and possible human suffering.  

 

 

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

But even if there were life in the Alpha Centauri system (very unlikely as a one-off), there's still the fact that 1) we not only have no technology capable of even getting a probe to Alpha Centauri, we don't even have a viable theory for how such a probe might get there, 2) we *might* be able to create a radio signal powerful enough to be noticed by any life there, but they'd have to have technology to receive it and be listening at the right time (more on that in a second), and 3) if we did manage to establish contact simply over radio channel , any conversation that started with "Hello!" would have to wait a decade to get the "Hi, how are you?" response back.

 

Now add to that the fact that earth is 4.6 billion years old, humans have only had *any* kind of "civilization" for .0002% of that time, and only had the capacity to listen to or generate radio waves for 1% of our "civilized" time. Now add that given our abuse of the biosphere, we could be well on to the latter half of the time of civilization right now, with less time in front of us than behind us since the establishment of Ur as a city. Making the basic assumption that intelligence on Alpha Centauri was roughly as rare and self-destructive as it is on Earth, what are the odds that our infinitesimal window of awareness corresponds to their infinitesimal window of awareness?

 

So as I said, overwhelmingly likely that it's out there (as in probabilities approaching 1), and overwhelmingly likely that we'll walk the length of our existence without ever finding them (also probabilities approaching 1).

 

Again, sorry to be the cheerful one around here...

 So feck IT  we are all alone then, and we will never achieve such teck in the future to get to places like Alpha Centauri system?

 

What if contact happens one day, what then?? Maybe an advanced intelligence will not wait until we develop such teck.

 

NASA are working on probes i think in relation to the ongoing discoveries of EXOPLANETS .

 

Still far off but its started , who knows what the future will hold, thats the beauty of it i suppose.

 

NASA Research Announcement;

NASA ROSES Strategic Astrophysics Technology:Technology Development for Exoplanet Missions View Website

Note that a Mandatory Notice-of-intent is due on January 25, 2018.

 

 

plant probes

Exoplanet Exploration: Planets Beyond our Solar System:Probe ...   In January 2013, the NASA Astrophysics Division initiated the formation of two Science and Technology Definition Teams (STDTs) to study probe-scale (cost less than $1B) mission concepts for the direct detection of extrasolar planets orbiting nearby stars. The STDTs were supported by a Design Team staffed by the ... https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/exep/studies/probe-scale-stdt

Exo-S Probe-Class Exoplanet Direct Imaging Mission Concept Final ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat   Exo-S: Starshade Probe-Class. Exoplanet Direct Imaging Mission Concept. Final Report. ExoPlanet Exploration Program. Astronomy, Physics and Space Technology Directorate. Jet Propulsion Laboratory for. Astrophysics Division. Science Mission Directorate. NASA. March 2015. Science and Technology Definition Team. https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/.../Exo-S_Starshade_Probe_Class_Final_Report_ 150312_URS250118.pdf

 

Exoplanet Exploration: Planets Beyond our Solar System: SAG   Products: "KISS/KITP Workshop: Exoplanet Science Measurements from Solar System Probes" http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/exoplanets_m10/. Overview: This SAG (Science Analysis Group) would bring together scientists, engineers, theorists, and NASA leadership from the exoplanetary and planetary/solar system  ... https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/exep/exopag/sag

[Nookie Bear]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

Sweeping generalisation there on me being anti capitalist. I am anti anything that is  corrupt and treats people   like shite, be that religions in the name of their gods or politicians in the name of their political party manifestos. 

 

  Indeed all those anti capitalists in Russia must be raging at their nations space commitments and achievements.

 

This was a thread of HUMAN advancements in space explorations , politics is one big cancer and should be well away from future space discoveries and advancements.

 

All future space advancements comes with  possible benefits to, medicine, and possible human suffering.  

 

 

 

Of course it was a sweeping statement, but so is your last paragraph. 

 

There are are things that need immediate attention and money should be diverted to those as a matter of urgency.  Cutting the defence budget massively as well should be a priority. 

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

But even if there were life in the Alpha Centauri system (very unlikely as a one-off), there's still the fact that 1) we not only have no technology capable of even getting a probe to Alpha Centauri, we don't even have a viable theory for how such a probe might get there, 2) we *might* be able to create a radio signal powerful enough to be noticed by any life there, but they'd have to have technology to receive it and be listening at the right time (more on that in a second), and 3) if we did manage to establish contact simply over radio channel , any conversation that started with "Hello!" would have to wait a decade to get the "Hi, how are you?" response back.

 

Now add to that the fact that earth is 4.6 billion years old, humans have only had *any* kind of "civilization" for .0002% of that time, and only had the capacity to listen to or generate radio waves for 1% of our "civilized" time. Now add that given our abuse of the biosphere, we could be well on to the latter half of the time of civilization right now, with less time in front of us than behind us since the establishment of Ur as a city. Making the basic assumption that intelligence on Alpha Centauri was roughly as rare and self-destructive as it is on Earth, what are the odds that our infinitesimal window of awareness corresponds to their infinitesimal window of awareness?

 

So as I said, overwhelmingly likely that it's out there (as in probabilities approaching 1), and overwhelmingly likely that we'll walk the length of our existence without ever finding them (also probabilities approaching 1).

 

Again, sorry to be the cheerful one around here...

 

Your points are not depressing, they're pragmatic.

 

It's part of the human condition to explore, to seek answers, to wonder, and I hope that that  never changes.  We should continue our ventures into space, but I think that the most practical way to do that is with machines, not astronauts.  Putting people aboard a vehicle not only vastly increases the costs, but also vastly increases the technical difficulties.

 

As for the possibility of there being sentient, technology-savvy, animals elsewhere in our galaxy, my simplistic feelings are, "Does it really matter?"  Whether they are planet-devouring fiends, or benign creatures with all the solutions to human problems, they are so far away that they'll never be part of our lives, so it doesn't make any difference.

 

For all practical purposes, we are alone.

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Of course it was a sweeping statement, but so is your last paragraph. 

 

There are are things that need immediate attention and money should be diverted to those as a matter of urgency.  Cutting the defence budget massively as well should be a priority. 

 Is it not fitting that any advancement in science should face the same political attacks on budgets and spending's then.

 

Will we stop all research and spending money on space until we are living in a Utopian paradise any going to happen.

 

You will not stop human advancements in space no matter how you politicise it.

 

Budgets are made, approved and money is spent, you would be naive  if you thought that man will change his course of actions be they  political or otherwise  the present course of despoiling this earth and its resources is very big business.

 

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Your points are not depressing, they're pragmatic.

 

It's part of the human condition to explore, to seek answers, to wonder, and I hope that that  never changes.  We should continue our ventures into space, but I think that the most practical way to do that is with machines, not astronauts.  Putting people aboard a vehicle not only vastly increases the costs, but also vastly increases the technical difficulties.

 

As for the possibility of there being sentient, technology-savvy, animals elsewhere in our galaxy, my simplistic feelings are, "Does it really matter?"  Whether they are planet-devouring fiends, or benign creatures with all the solutions to human problems, they are so far away that they'll never be part of our lives, so it doesn't make any difference.

 

For all practical purposes, we are alone.

 

For now we are alone yes, who knows what the future holds.

 

Of course it matters ,you  speak of spending money on other things that need addressed for the benefit of humanity ,but cannot see past the fact that any discovers of such life out there could have huge benefits for humanity in the areas  of medicine , science  and  the eco systems our own earth.

 

We could get that shove that propels  humanity to the stars. 

 

Speculate to accumulate??

 

What if a advance race decides that  one day  they want to be part of our life ,or at least share what they know. Right know now-one can make the premature call on the future. 

 

Un-manned probes ect yes i agree on .

 

 

 

[XB52]

21 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Sad and lonely?   I doubt those words can have any meaning in the context of this issue.

 

Previous posters above have explained where I'm coming from.  Living things have a strong tendency or in some cases urge to reproduce, but that doesn't drive the continued existence of species; it drives the continued existence and replication of DNA.  For as long as there has been life on Earth there has been DNA, but the species, the phenotypes which carry the DNA have always existed temporarily - for millions of years sometimes, but temporarily nonetheless.  If genes or collections of genes can replicate themselves within a current species or phenotype structure they will do so.  If for some reason the environment doesn't suit that species or phenotype structure then it will change.  Stuff that works well and leads to reproduction will stay, stuff that really works will be emphasised, and stuff that works badly or is ill-adapted will cause early deaths, a lack of reproduction, and ultimately either extinction of a species or evolution to something new. 

 

So while all life on Earth has the effect of preserving and reproducing DNA, it doesn't have the effect of preserving or propagating species - or at best only propagates them for a time.  Though there is a strong force driving individual living things to reproduce, that's not a drive to preserve or propagate a species.  That's why I'm saying that an individual fox, bird or human will desperately try to survive and reproduce, but its interest in doing so only runs to itself and its own line of succession, and that's not the same as an interest in preserving foxes, birds or humans as species.

 

 

Green peace are dedicated to preserving the planet and all species surely? And they are not the only ones by a long chalk

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

 

For now we are alone yes, who knows what the future holds.

 

Of course it matters ,you  speak of spending money on other things that need addressed for the benefit of humanity ,but cannot see past the fact that any discovers of such life out there could have huge benefits for humanity in the areas  of medicine , science  and  the eco systems our own earth.

 

We could get that shove that propels  humanity to the stars. 

 

Speculate to accumulate??

 

What if a advance race decides that  one day  they want to be part of our life ,or at least share what they know. Right know now-one can make the premature call on the future. 

 

Un-manned probes ect yes i agree on .

 

 

 

 

The highlighted bit ... where did I say that?

[maroonlegions]

5 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The highlighted bit ... where did I say that?

 Apologies, you never said that.

In replying to your post i got  you mixed up with another poster.  

[Maple Leaf]

10 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 Apologies, you never said that.

In replying to your post i got  you mixed up with another poster.  

[maroonlegions]

Just Like Earth, Titan Has a "Sea Level" for its Lakes and Seas - Universe Today

Based on Cassini data, two new studies have been produced that reveal some new and interesting things about Saturn's largest moon, Titan

 

UNIVERSETODAY.COM

 

[Sidelight]

On ‎19‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 21:07, Ugly American said:

 

For myself, my religion has nothing to do with how I would see alien life forms. I don't take the "in his own image" stuff literally (or much of anything in early Genesis literally, for that matter). Finding alien life would be similar to finding the weird stuff we find at deep ocean depths. Just fascinating.

 

I'm far more intrigued by it as a scientist -- we really have nothing to go on besides our imaginations on what "life" even means outside of the context of earth. It's all carbon and protein based here, but as for what else there could be, Star Trek is about as good a source as any.

 

The craziest, "nobody really thinks it's that likely but we can't rule it out" case is that life may have even evolved first on Mars and been introduced to earth (in single-cellular form or not much above it) as something that got blasted off the Martian surface by an impact and turned into a meteor, which then inoculated Earth. Again, almost no way to prove or disprove it at this point, unless we get to Mars and find actual traces of cellular life there.

Dear UA,

This is an interesting topic and my response to your above post concerns not the argument in favour or against the view presented. But rather to make clear that the thoughts contained within are not theologically consistent or Christian in their understanding. Thankfully you are free to intellectualise and express your thoughts publicly. However I was concerned that other readers may fall into the misconception that your views were Biblically authentic and Christian, when they are not.

The Bible clearly says that the primary truth about God is that He is Creator of all. The world says that the universe appeared and that it made itself. No God required. As a church member, being married to a pastor/minister and through private reading, you are obviously fully aware of the Biblical account of the fall into sin and death, and the redemptive work of Christ.

We know the Bible states that, Christ died once for all (Heb: 10-10).  And that all human beings are of ‘one blood’ (Acts 17:26).

Scripture makes it clear that we are all descended from Adam from whom we inherit our sin. Christ is also a blood relative of ours since He like us is also descended from Adam.

This leads me to my second point. That intelligent ‘aliens’ cannot be redeemed, since God’s plan of redemption is for us, human beings who are descended from Adam. When relating the salvation plan to hypothetical ET’s, great problems arise.

If there were intelligent creative aliens living out there, how would they be saved? The Christian faith would also be seriously compromised. Destroyed I think.

Firstly they would not be blood relatives of Adam or Jesus, therefore Christ’s shed blood cannot pay for their sins. Christ died once and for all (1 Pet 3:18, Heb 9:27, 10:10). That rules out a tour of the planets and a death on each visit.

Even to suggest that the aliens may never have sinned and that no redemption was necessary, highlights another theological problem. That being that all creation suffers as a result of sin and is under bondage of corruption. (Rom 8:20).

These kind of theological issues highlight some of the difficulties  encountered when trying to inject an anti-biblical notion into the Christian world view.

Extra-terrestrial life is very much an evolutionary concept and construct and as such does not fit with the Bibles teaching on the specialness of earth and the distinct spiritual uniqueness of human kind.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Dear AJ,

 

As always, thank you for your infallible politeness in our conversations. I must point out that if you decide that my understandings of salvation, redemption, and the interpretation of the scripture is outside of what is "Christian," you summarily evict somewhere between 30%-90% of living, practicing Christians from Christianity, as well as countless others throughout the two millennia since our Lord and Savior walked the earth. Which is your prerogative -- you would have plentiful company in declaring only one theological interpretation as acceptable in the One True Church, but as in each of these instances, as I survey the magnitude and the great cloud of witnesses to whom you have served eviction notices, I am quite comforted. 

 

As I have mentioned elsewhere, Biblical literalism and inerrancy is relatively new to Christianity -- only a few centuries old. Orthodox Christians do not even regard there to be a single canonical Scripture or Bible which retains authority outside the traditions of the church, and the Roman Catholic Church regards the Bible as a product of their own institution that emerged from ecclesiastical processes and therefore only one of many sources of theological knowledge, so clearly the idea of Biblical literalism is restricted to Protestantism, and only one particular corner of Protestantism. Further, literalism and inerrancy comes from neither Luther nor Calvin, but only emerges in the 18th century in certain sects of Calvinists and Arminians, and then largely as what they thought was an effective response to modernism.  (As an aside, I am actually currently working on an extended essay for my academic program on particular critiques of modernism, but within that I think the anti-modernist stance that fundamentalists and evangelicals take ignores that it is essentially a reactive position and therefore depends upon modernism as a fulcrum to act against. But that's obviously a much longer diversion.)

 

We are repeatedly reminded through Scripture and by theologians dating back to Chrysostom and Augustine and continuing through Calvin himself and further that the fullness of the nature of God is radically beyond our comprehension, and that following God is not about us fully comprehending God, which is plainly impossible for mortals, but about loving God, our neighbor, our enemy, and kindness. (A very incomplete list: Micah 6, John 21, Mat 24, 1 Cor 13, and then Augustine's anecdote of the seashell) Jesus himself even makes clear that our concept of who gets saved is going to be bigger than we realize (John 10).

 

So from a theological point of view, the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence is a theological crisis only if ones theology is grounded in our own certainty about the exact extent of God's grace. If one already assumes that God's grace is infinitely bigger than ones comprehension, then the introduction of extraterrestrial intelligence or an old earth or evolutionary history become miraculous revelations rather than threats to our salvation.  

 

You are far from the first to inform me that my convictions do not meet your concept of what Christian is. Because of that, I have gotten to be quite good at removing dust from my sandals over the years. I am at peace with my own position within the traditions of the church.

 

Grace and peace to you.

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

For now we are alone yes, who knows what the future holds.

 

Of course it matters ,you  speak of spending money on other things that need addressed for the benefit of humanity ,but cannot see past the fact that any discovers of such life out there could have huge benefits for humanity in the areas  of medicine , science  and  the eco systems our own earth.

 

We could get that shove that propels  humanity to the stars. 

 

Speculate to accumulate??

 

What if a advance race decides that  one day  they want to be part of our life ,or at least share what they know. Right know now-one can make the premature call on the future. 

 

Un-manned probes ect yes i agree on .

 

 

 

Come on ML, you know what happens when humans get a hold of new life and technology. It never ends well. 

[maroonlegions]

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Come on ML, you know what happens when humans get a hold of new life and technology. It never ends well. 

 

Of course human nature plays a big part in the decision making of how to use new tech and how to interact with new life and for what purposes. Saying that you cannot stop new teck or  the detection of new forms of life. Whats the alternative to human advancement in those two disciplines, whats the alternative to human natures natural path of curiosity and the desire to advance and know more. There is no way the  human  trait of self preservation  will ever be compromised.