UFO's: Seeing is Believing

[fanofsteel]

OK so here we go again.......
Anyone watch UFO's: Seeing is Believing hosted by Peter Jennings last night?
I thought it was presented very well and made a case for both pros and cons.
I know it has has been discussed many times but last night's program gave new energy to the subject.
Whattya think?

[Disco]

Saw the last 30 minutes. Was actually thinking of starting a thread last night about this.

My only problem is.... most of these sightings take place either at night or in a small populated area. You never hear anything like this happening in broad daylight over Times Square.

[yeshuamyking7]

Since I don't believe in evolution, I'm not swayed by the idea that there has to be life on other planets. It didn't evolve here, it was created. So it wouldn't evolve there either, whether there is water on the planet or not.

That being said, I do believe in UFOs. "How can this be?", you might ask. Take a look at the following website:

http://www.alienresistance.org/

Aliens and fallen angels have much in common in terms of their descriptions and what they are said to have done in relation to human beings. This is what I believe can adequately explain their appearance at this time. We live in the End Times, which are said in Scripture to be likened to the days of Noah. In the days of Noah, Nephilim walked the earth. Nephilim are the offspring of the Sons of Elohim (Sons of God - term always used to describe angels) and the daughters of men. This appearance during the time of Noah is similar to the appearance during our time, where aliens are said to have done experiments on people and animals, given technology to people, and so on. All these things were also ascribed to fallen angels in ancient times.

Incidentally, my dad saw a UFO once. He was travelling through Rabbit Ear's Pass in Colorado, and saw a large spherical object brilliantly lit up. There were others that saw it as well and pulled over to take a look. Apparently after remaining motionless for some time, it darted off at great speed. My dad called the authorities, and they confirmed that no known craft was in the area at the time.

[axisoftime]

Back in the mid 80's I was at a nearby field watching the Leonids-a big meteor shower that takes place in August.I was sitting in the top row of these stands,I saw a few meteors,stayed about 90 minutes, then climbed down to leave,Just as i started walking across the field,I saw a bright light in the sky,like a huge searchlight,slowly turning,surrounded by a hazy 'cloudlike' mist.It got so bright I had to turn away,when I looked back,it had shifted so the light was much less.Then it seemed to move sideways for a minute-then slightly upwards and was gone.Well,being alone in a big dark field and seeing that,I sorta freaked lol.I walked home quickly.The next day on the front page of the Detroit News was an article with the headline 'What was it'?100s of people saw it and many called police and news stations.I still have the article!

[xxkittenstar]

With the vastness of the universe it would be stupid to say that aliens are an unreal fantasy, but I'm highly skeptical that any beings from another planet have actually visited Earth.

[yeshuamyking7]

The "vastness" concept relies heavily on evolution and probability. Once we eliminate evolution as a factor, there is no reason why life has to exist elsewhere in the universe. If it does, Yahweh created it. See the following articles on this subject for more detail:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp

[Mr Boejangles]

thats the thing though i have no reason to rule out evolution... I do believe in UFOs as to the viewer they are most certainly UFOs that doesnt mean they are aliens however....

i cant really believe there are Aliens however, untill i either see one, or it is documented for real.
I would like to believe.

[Alan]

If you dont believe in evolution, where did we come from? (not startin an argument, just wonderin)

I have seen a UFO, and im not crazy or looking for attention :D just some lights at night doing some quick maneuovers, and im training to be a pilot so I know my aircraft and that wasnt one, not sayin it was alien, it just wasnt piloted (no way a human could take the gs it was doing).

I do believe in other life though, I just cant see what makes little ole us so important to be alone.

Al

[IVISupermanIVI]

X

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by Mr Boejangles
thats the thing though i have no reason to rule out evolution...

As I recall, you were one of the first to reply to my "Creation vs. Evolution" thread. I gave you all plenty of good reasons to rule out evolution. If you still choose to accept it, that's fine, but there is more than enough good evidence to rule it out.


Originally posted by Alan
If you dont believe in evolution, where did we come from?

Yahweh created us on the sixth day as recorded in the book of Genesis.

I'd go into more detail, but I'll probably get this thread closed if I do. Here are some links where you can find more information about this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.icr.org/research/

Please feel free to PM me for more information. :)


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
yeshuamyking7, I do not agree with your views at all.
-Jon

:lol: Care to elaborate, Jon, or are we just going to leave it at that. :)

[IVISupermanIVI]

X

[TVHOG]

As a Christian, I agree that your theory is very possible, but I just dont have enough information. Ive never seen a UFO, so I wont believe until I see one. I do believe this is the end times and the Bible does talk about strange appearances in the sky (dont have the verse here with me).

[Sharkie]

I didn't see the show, but I find the concept of aliens and UFO's exciting. I believe aliens are out there, but I'm not sure that they are advanced beyond us, or that they'd travel the stars to meet us. If other life is out there, it is likely to be simple organisms, though it is also probable that a world very much like our own exists.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
I don't feel a need to start a fight, but in all honesty...you are very close minded.

I believe in the Truth revealed in Scripture, and I believe that that Truth is not contradicted in nature. I'm joined in that belief by many scientists throughout history, including Isaac Newton and a whole list provided herein - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

This is my faith and it is no more or less close-minded than the dogmatic belief in naturalism espoused by atheistic evolutionists.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
You should not solely believe one text or theory just because you believe in god.

Why? Scripture is the Word of Yahweh, and is therefore infallible and trustworthy. I've seen no good evidence to point me in another direction, so I'll stick with Scripture.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
I find anyone who is unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinion and consider it could possibly be truth; should not then be able to force their opinion on anyone else either. Clearly, this is the case with you, so please don't argue that you want to listen to another view point ...

You address three separate issues here. The first is whether or not I am willing to listen to anyone else's opinion. Throughout my time here at K-site, and indeed throughout my adult life, I have been more than willing to hear what someone else has to say. I may disagree with it, but I'm not silencing you or anyone. Once again, disagreeing with someone, even strongly, is not the same as being unwilling to hear their point of view.

The second issue is whether I am willing to consider the possibility that someone else's views could possibly be true. I am always willing to do so, just so long as those views don't contradict Scripture. I'm not willing to accept racism, because it contradicts Scripture. I'm not willing to accept murder, because it contradicts Scripture. I'm not willing to accept atheism, evolution or naturalism because all three contradict Scripture.

I take the Word of Yahweh over anyone's opinion, even my own. If you can show me from Scripture that I'm wrong about evolution, then have at it. Otherwise, I'm sticking with creationism.

The third point is whether I am forcing my opinion on others. I don't see how this could possibly be the case. Stating my opinion, even unequivically, is not the same as forcing someone to believe what I believe. If you want to believe in evolution and aliens, that's fine by me. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in the argument for both, as it relates to aliens and UFOs.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
... without posting links to some crap site someone put together, and use it as evidence against anything. I'll post articles from the onion newspaper if you want to fight with fiction.

I think it's rather odd that you would label the site in such a manner. It really makes me wonder how much of it you've actually read. If you don't believe it, that's fine.

However, the idea of Aliens, and UFOs are connected to the Creation/Evolution controversy. If one believes in evolution, one is more likely to accept that there is Alien life elsewhere in the universe, because it "had to evolve somewhere, just based on probability." If one believes in Scripture and therefore creationism, then one would be less likely to accept that there is Alien life elsewhere in the universe, unless of course Yahweh created it.

I'm simply pointing this out, bringing my point of view to the discussion of Aliens and UFOs. If you don't agree with it that's fine. However, the language you are using is way too hostile in my opinion. It seems to me that you would rather I just slink away and leave the rest of you to your insular little discussion about Aliens and UFOs, without regard to what someone such as myself believes on the subject. I'm a person, too, Jon. If your views should be heard, then mine should, too.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
I am angered that you changed this thread into something else when it was about a UFO Television Program.
-Jon

There's really no reason to get angry. I've confined my discussion to UFOs and Aliens, and my beliefs about them in my posts (except above, where I have responded to you questioning my integrity). The original question from fanofsteel was "Whattya think" about UFOs, after the "new energy" from the program. I saw the last few minutes of the special. Some others haven't seen it at all. However, I have a definite view about UFOs, and I have expressed it above.

If you disagree with me, again, that's fine. But don't come to me with "I don't feel a need to start a fight," and then proceed to accuse me of "forcing my views" on others. Likewise, I don't think there is any reason to call my views, and those of other creationists, "fiction" and "crap." That is totally uncalled for, Jon. I've been nothing but civil, and you have really lowered the level of this debate by using words like that.

I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility that there is alien life out there. I'm even willing to entertain the possibility that it has visited earth. However, I'm not willing to entertain the possibility that it has to exist because of the "vastness" of space. That's an evolutionist argument, and I believe in Scripture.

Having said that, I'm willing to hear anyone's views. Entertaining those views (i.e. accepting that they are true or could be true) entails determining whether they mesh with Scripture. That's just the nature of my faith. Take it or leave it, but please don't belittle it.

[Mr Boejangles]

To me The aliens behind the UFOs are as real as the gods behind religion and all that good stuff... like the topic says seeing is believing... I am that guy referred to as "ye' of little faith"

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by Mr Boejangles
To me The aliens behind the UFOs are as real as the gods behind religion and all that good stuff... like the topic says seeing is believing... I am that guy referred to as "ye' of little faith"

I suppose the question is, "Which faith has more evidence to back it up?" I would argue that the Scriptural idea of the supernatural and angels/demons as UFOs has much more evidence to back it up than the "little green men" theory. Evolution has failed utterly to explain life on this planet, so it seems unreasonable to me to assume that it could possibly account for life on other planets.

Again, though, I'm not discounting the possibility that such life exists, or that it has visited our planet. I'm simply saying that there is another possible explanation.

I am, however, discounting the notion that life "had to evolve somewhere else." This is stated in a more concrete way by the Drake Equation (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html):



N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

1. N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?

Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

2. fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?

Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

3. ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?

Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

5. fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?

Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

6. fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?

Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

7. fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?

Answer: 10% to 20%

8. fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?

Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

9. When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

The deception in the equation is that we can come up with some sort of definite number for N, or even an upper and lower limit for it. When we examine the equation more closely, we see that each point rests on unprovable assumptions.

Our astronomy is just beginning to be more precise, so all questions dealing with the number of stars in a galaxy are always subject to change based on technology, and our ability to detect the faintest light sources.

The science of planet hunting is in its infancy, so we cannot possibly make any verifiable assumptions about the number of planets revolving around a given star.

Our knowledge about what is necessary to sustain life is limited to our own planet, and at that is restricted by our own understanding and interpretation of the data we have at hand.

We derive the answers to the remaining questions, in whole or in part, based on uniformitarianism, gradualism and evolutionary theory, theories which can be shown to be incapable of explaining the phenomena associated with the origins of life, the fossil record, the geological record, and so on.

These remaining questions also rely heavily on long age dating methods, which have no real basis in scienctific fact and are based on faulty assumptions themselves (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp ).

This equation doesn't even take into consideration the enormous technical and scientific hurdles to interstellar travel, so the topic of UFOs is not addressed by the Drake Equation and would further limit its conclusions.

Everyone has faith, Mr. Boejangles. It's simply a question of "how much?" and "in what?" I submit that faith in evolution and the necessity of alien life is based on faulty assumptions and little emperical evidence.

As I've stated above, however, I do believe that there is considerable emperical evidence for the UFO phenomenon, notwistanding some definite hoaxes. The question is, how do we interpret this phenomenon? I've presented a way to interpret it based on Scripture, in possible connection to portions of the book of Enoch and fallen angels/demons (http://www.alienresistance.org/ ).

[ShadowRothus]

I know thier are Aliens out thier and have been to Earth. They may not be green but to just say that humanoid aliens arnt out thier is just being dumb. All you need is for some planet to be millions of years ahead of us with more advance ships and they could proubly get to earth in some way.

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Really, the entire Creationism v. Evolution debate is, in this instance, meaningless. My views on either are equally meaningless. The fact of the matter is that we simply don't know, meaning that we also don't know that there is no life out there.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that out of the infinite expanses of the Universe, God (by any name) has limited his actions to one single planet. Nowhere does it state that we are his only creations, nor does it describe in detail the processes by which that would be done. (Rarely does anyone suppose that God, having infinite wisdom and knowledge understands evolution, and could even choose to use that process. But there it is. The two deas are not mutually exclusive.)

Both views are incomplete, but neither entirely deny the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

[IVISupermanIVI]

Good Post MyOwnSuperhero I agree. As for what you said yeshuamyking7 about my post, I would have been happy just saying I disagree, but you put smiles around your sentance. You want to argue. I don't believe in scripture at all...so I appoligise if I seem hostile, but the mere idea of it makes me just as frustrated as I am sure it frustrates you when I say I don't believe what you believe. On that note. If you want to answer these questions for me I would love it, and you would sway me more towards your point of view.

1) Did men not write the bible? Whether or not God told them what to write, is it not simply them writting it down through their point of view?

2) Are all men perfect, and have solid opinions on everything?

3)If anyone is truly to be open minded would that not mean that one should never put stock in ANYTHING exclusively?

4)If indeed any religion has any ounce of plausablity to it, why must it be taken litterally?

5) How can you explain that through science we know that all life on Earth shares genes that resemble each other? You have the same genes in you to become a potato, but you have others that make you what you are. Purhaps the defintion of life is the problem here. Why is a tree considered more alive than the water that if feeds off of? Why is a chemical not considered alive when it reacts to it's enviroment? Would it not be a logical step for things to progress in the direction of more complex biology? Why are there differant types of humans pertaining to certian regions of the world? If god is one thing, why does he make people that look differant? Does he have more than one image of himself? Or is it that Human's changed themselves to better live in the enviroment they were given? This in itself proves that mutation is possible, whether over long stretches of time or short, it is clear that things in all life change from generation to generation. If it didn't all people would be identical and there would be no reason to have this discussion, because we would all agree.

As for what you said about me not reading what you provided, I did, I read it all...that is why I chose to express myself on the matter. As for your side of the argument...how much chemestry and biology have you let into your head. Whether or not you studied science is irrelevent because you will discount it no matter what in favor that your life is in the hands solely of the almighty. This debate has gone on for quite sometime outside of this post. However, I find myself shaking my head at anyone who in this day in age says that there is only one answer and it is in one book or one equation. This cannot be because all knowledge that exsists on our world was manufactured by us. Therefore, none of it will ever be absolutely correct, because none of us are absolutely perfect. That being said, I respect your views.

[axisoftime]

I for 1 believe in extraterrestial life.I saw a UFO,and while I cant say it was definately of alien origin-it was entirely plausible that it certainly could have been!Some might ask why they havent revealed themselves:

1)Any race able to travel thru space easily, would be far more advanced then us-perhaps they have some rule prohibiting contact with primitives
2)maybe we are being visited by unmanned probes
3)So many stars-planets and galaxys,how can there not be?

Religion and Science have always been at odds.Religion says the universe is 6000 years old-science states its billions of years old.I like what Carl Sagan said "If youre sick u can either pray to get better or take medicine-try science".However I do agree with My Own Superhero-we simply dont know.We dont know whats out there-whether science is right or whether religion is right or some combination thereof-as Arthur C Clarke said in 2001:A Space Odyseey-'The Truth,as always,will be far stranger'.

[Mr Boejangles]

Originally posted by yeshuamyking7


Everyone has faith, Mr. Boejangles. It's simply a question of "how much?" and "in what?" I submit that faith in evolution and the necessity of alien life is based on faulty assumptions and little emperical evidence.

Sure everyone has faith... just some have it less than others. thus ''ye of little faith'' am I.

[fanofsteel]

The introduction of religious beliefs into this thread is appropriate as both the belief in Creationism and the belief that UFOs are the craft of extraterrestrial visitors to Earth are both bereft of any scientific evidence.

No doubt, UFOs exist, people see them, but to make the leap from an unidentified object to a star ship is rather a very large leap indeed. Other than eye witness repots, which scientifically are without benefit, there is simply nothing here to test.

Is the universe teeming with life? My strong belief is yes it is, but even that has yet to be proven. If however life, or a fossil record, is found on Mars we will take a giant step towards conclusive evidence for proving it's proliferation in the cosmos.

If life abounds in the universe does a technological universe then follow? Now that's the rub. Is technolgy unique or a rare consequence? Even the presence of life on Europa or Titan won't answer that question. The best bet for proof of that will be through the radio telscopes that are continuously scanning the skies above us.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by ShadowRothus
I know thier are Aliens out thier and have been to Earth. They may not be green but to just say that humanoid aliens arnt out thier is just being dumb. All you need is for some planet to be millions of years ahead of us with more advance ships and they could proubly get to earth in some way.

First, I have not ruled out the possibility of alien life, or even intelligent alien life. I'm simply saying that I have seen no empirical evidence to convince me of said life. All I've seen is speculation, such as you have provided above. It's not "dumb" to be cautious about a theory with no emperical evidence to back it up. That's the essence of good science.

I would also submit that the universe is not millions or billions of years old, and therefore no civilization could be that far advanced. Again, this is based on pure assumption and the faulty radiometric and astronomical dating methods, not on real science (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp ).


Originally posted by MyOwnSuperhero
Really, the entire Creationism v. Evolution debate is, in this instance, meaningless. My views on either are equally meaningless. The fact of the matter is that we simply don't know, meaning that we also don't know that there is no life out there.

I submit to you that the creation/evolution debate is central to this issue, for reasons I have stated above. If one believes in evolution, millions/billions of years, etc., one will be far more likely to buy the argument that life "has to have evolved somewhere out there." If one believes in Scripture, and therefore in creationism, one would say emphatically that it is impossible that life evolved elsewhere, because macroevolution of the molecules-to-man variety is impossible. If life is out there somewhere, the creationist would say that Yahweh formed that life.


Originally posted by MyOwnSuperhero
Nowhere in scripture does it say that out of the infinite expanses of the Universe, God (by any name) has limited his actions to one single planet. Nowhere does it state that we are his only creations, nor does it describe in detail the processes by which that would be done. (Rarely does anyone suppose that God, having infinite wisdom and knowledge understands evolution, and could even choose to use that process. But there it is. The two deas are not mutually exclusive.)

Both views are incomplete, but neither entirely deny the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

You've stated what Scripture does not say with regard to alien life. Let's look at what Scripture does say on this matter (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/fiction.asp ):



Many wonder (even some Christians)—inspired by the wonder of special effects—‘Could there be life on other planets?’ But a straightforward reading of Genesis gives us no indication that God created intelligent, alien life-forms elsewhere in the universe. Would such questions even be asked if science fiction were not so popular?

Romans 8:22 also tells us that the whole creation has been groaning (because of sin and the subsequent Curse) right up to the present time. So, it would not make sense that intelligent beings on another planet (part of this creation) had, because of the sin of Adam on the Earth, been subjected to the Curse?

Also, God the Creator of the universe (in particular, the Second Person of the Trinity) took on human nature (Jesus) as the ‘last Adam’ (John 1:1–18). He came to this Earth to fulfil His plan for the redemption of the human race (offspring of the ‘first Adam’) which would redeem the entire universe as well. Redeemed humanity will be Christ’s bride throughout eternity—and Christ will only have one bride, effectively eliminating the notion of ‘other races’ in the universe (Eph. 5:22–33, Rev. 19:7–9).

Science fiction has helped people grasp the enormous size of the universe. But many go on to ask, ‘Why would God go to all the trouble of creating billions of galaxies and stars?’ Apologist John Whitcomb writes: ‘It must be recognized … that it required no more exertion of energy for God to create a trillion galaxies than to create one planet’.3 Isaiah 40:28 says; ‘… the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow weak nor weary …’. Actually, stars are rather simple structures—they have been described as ‘glowing balls of gas’. There is far more complexity in the genetic code of the simplest organism than in a thousand galaxies. It would thus take more ‘creative input’, in that sense, for Jesus’ miracle of feeding the five thousand than for the creation of countless quasars (there is immense complexity in the structure of even a dead fish). And presumably, if God had created only our solar system, sceptics would ask why, if He were so great, did He not create something on a larger scale.

Scripture explains that the purpose of stars—created on Day 4 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:14)—was to divide day and night, as signs and seasons, and for days and years. In other words, the focus of the entire creation, even those stars that are mega-distances away, is for humankind, on this Earth. Incidentally, as readers of our journal TJ [Editorial note: short Technical Journal, a scientific creationist journal akin to Nature] would know, scientific evidence on redshifts now suggests strongly that our galaxy, the Milky Way, is at or near the physical centre of the universe.

Your second point is about the lack of description in Scripture regarding the processes employed by Yahweh in creation. First, a plain reading of the text of genesis eliminates billions of years, and therefore eliminates the possibility that Yahweh used evolution. However, let's take a look at why there would be no in-depth description of the method of creation.

In his book, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis, Commodore P.J. Wiseman of the British Royal Air Force (who, in connection with his post, traveled extensively in the Middle East, studying the ancient cuneiform tablets and papyri found there) writes regarding the first chapter of Genesis:



Naturally the wording is simple, but the truth conveyed is profound. Human as the language is, it is still the best medium God could use to communicate with man. It is God teaching Adam, in a simple yet faultless way, how the earth and the things which he could see on and around it had been created. The Lord God talked with Adam in the Garden. This tablet [editorial note: refers to the tablet Adam inscribed under the instruction of Yahweh] purports to be a simple record of what God said and did. Adam is told just as much as his mind could understand. The details and processes are not fully revealed. Had they been, how could he and later ages have understood them? We would claim, then, that this first section of Genesis is the most ancient piece of writing. It is a record of what God told Adam. It is not an impersonal general acount. It is God teaching the first man the elemental things about the universe, at the very dawn of human language. Here we get back also the very inauguration of written history.


Originally posted by
IVISupermanIVI
As for what you said yeshuamyking7 about my post, I would have been happy just saying I disagree, but you put smiles around your sentance. You want to argue.

I won't deny that I want to debate. I was under the impression that that was the point of this thread and indeed this board. I disagree with your characterization of that desire, however. The word "argue" carries serious negative connotations, and I have been civil throughout this debate. It is you who have resorted to calling my beliefs "crap," in spite of your assertions that you "respect" them.

When I have disagreed with you or with anyone else, I have stated my reasons for doing so. That is the nature of a conversation, Jon. I smiled not in a mocking way. I simply found it funny that you were initially unwilling to come out and say why you disagree with my position, until I prompted you to do so.


Originally posted by
IVISupermanIVI
I don't believe in scripture at all...so I appoligise if I seem hostile, but the mere idea of it makes me just as frustrated as I am sure it frustrates you when I say I don't believe what you believe. On that note. If you want to answer these questions for me I would love it, and you would sway me more towards your point of view.

There's no need to apologize. As for my own feelings regarding your refusal to believe Scripture, I suppose my response could be described more as astonishment than frustration. In reality, it should not surprise me any more. Man will go to whatever length necessary to deny the plain and simple Truth revealed by Yahweh in Scripture.

Each question you pose above has a definite and scriptural answer. I'm not sure if they will sway you, for many such as yourself are mentally entrenched in the anti-Scripture worldview. I will give it my best shot, though.

That being said, I won't do it here. All five questions are off-topic, so I'll contact you privately with an answer. Unfortunately, I have class right in about 25 minutes, so I will be unable to do so at this time. I apologize.


Originally posted by
IVISupermanIVI
As for what you said about me not reading what you provided, I did, I read it all...that is why I chose to express myself on the matter. As for your side of the argument...how much chemestry and biology have you let into your head. Whether or not you studied science is irrelevent because you will discount it no matter what in favor that your life is in the hands solely of the almighty.

I'm glad you read it. I'm disappointed that it did not sway you, but such is the nature of things.

As for my own background, I've stated several times in other threads that I am a former theistic evolutionist. I tried to fit evolution into the Bible, so I know all the tricks people use to try to do so. I also know a great deal about evolution. I've always been a very scientific person, and I've gone out of my way to study as much science as possible. I took three years of biology in high school, including a year of AP biology, and a year of biology in college including a biology lab course. I also studied chemistry for two years in high school and two years in college, and physics for one year in high school. Incidentally, I don't have much in a negative way to say about the natural sciences. If you look at a physics or chemistry text book, except in those places where you see reference to the radiometric dating methods, there is no mention of evolution. Creationists accept the natural sciences, which are for incompatible with evolution.

As for evolution itself, I do not consider it a true science. It is a philosophy, a woldview, a religion. It presupposes evidence not in the record, and interprets all data accordingly. There's nothing inherently wrong with this approach. This presuppositional logic is the same approach taken by believers in Scripture. We presuppose that Yahweh exists and the Scripture is His Word. The question is, which presupposition better explains the emperical data we have at hand (the universe, the world, and we who live in it)? I submit that it is Scripture that is the guide to interpreting the data, and it is this interpretation that better fits the data. I would recommend that you read Whitcomb's and Morris's The Genesis Flood - http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0875523382 . You won't be able to find it in most libraries, but using the ISBN number and biographical information in the link above, you can request it from your local library using the inter-library loan program.

Suffice it to say that I study evolution and continue to do so. It would be impossible to refute it otherwise.

Now, to steer this topic back to UFOs/Aliens, I'll pose a question:

What do you all think of the supposed ancient mention of extraterrestrial objects, such as in paintings and historical documents?

[Mr Boejangles]

To bad theres not some magic genie who could answer all our questions with a yes no response.

[TVHOG]

And who new Billy Graham was on Kryptonsite? (Just kiddn, I love Billy Graham)

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by fanofsteel
The introduction of religious beliefs into this thread is appropriate as both the belief in Creationism and the belief that UFOs are the craft of extraterrestrial visitors to Earth are both bereft of any scientific evidence.

I had high hopes for this post when it started, but you've really let me down. :)

You begin by saying that it's appropriate to bring up religious belief with regard to this topic, then you pull the rug out from under my hopes by saying that is because neither religious belief nor UFOs have any scientific evidence to back them up.

First, to the religious issue. You simply make the statement that there is no evidence to back it up without presenting any evidence yourself that this is the case. I've presented evidence here and elsewhere that belies your claim. You may dispute the quality of that evidence, and I'd be happy to take that debate in private. However, I think it's disengenuous of you to make a blanket statement about religion as you do above without at least attempting to back it up. Anticipating a possible counter to this argument, I'll simply say that it is not necessary to get into a long religious discussion in order to make the claim you do above. Present some historical examples of why you believe religion to be "befeft of any scientific evidence."

If you want to talk about this in more depth, just PM me, but I don't think it's appropriate to make sweeping statements without even attempting to back them up in a limited sense.

I'll address UFOs more below, but as an aside, there is a deep religious connection to the UFO phenomenon, particularly with New Age spiritualism. This alone should warrant the discussion of religion with regard to UFOs, and helps to bolster my case that it is has a satanic element (at least if one agrees with Scripture; if not, then the discussion of whether or not demons and Satan even exist would be a good one to have, but it would, of course, be off-topic).


Originally posted by fanofsteel
No doubt, UFOs exist, people see them, but to make the leap from an unidentified object to a star ship is rather a very large leap indeed. Other than eye witness repots, which scientifically are without benefit, there is simply nothing here to test.

I totally agree with your first statement. However, I'm not sure I can say that eye witness reports have no scientific benefit. Plus, eyewitness reports are not all we have. There are many video tapes and pictures of the phenomenon. Bear in mind that I have a healthy dose of skepticism regarding these tapes, as many have proven to be hoaxes.

There are numerous cases where multiple independent sightings have occured and been filmed or photographed by lucky people with cameras. I'm open to non-extraterrestrial explanations for these phenomena, but I can't really dismiss cases like that out of hand.

Eye witness reports are problematic if not corroborated by independent evidence. However, I think there is such evidence, and I've only talked about it in a general sense so far.

Obviously it would be difficult to perform a repeatable experiment regarding UFOs. However, the same can be said with regard to macroevolution, which no repeatable scientific experiment has proven.


Originally posted by fanofsteel
Is the universe teeming with life? My strong belief is yes it is, but even that has yet to be proven. If however life, or a fossil record, is found on Mars we will take a giant step towards conclusive evidence for proving it's proliferation in the cosmos.

My first question is, why do you strongly believe that the universe is "teeming with life?" If you answer that in the "vastness of space life had to evolve somewhere besides this planet," you are basically proving my point about the connection between creationism/evolution and the extraterrestrial debate. Given your statements above, I'm not sure how else you could possibly answer this question, but I'd love to hear what you have to say.

As for evidence of life on Mars, it is essentially conjecture. Again, the presence of water on Mars in the distant past only means something if one believes in evolution. The famous meteorite labeled ALH84001 is the topic of much debate even in evolutionist circles, with almost unanimous agreement that the amino acids found therein are contamination from Earth. The other 'nanofossils’ were more likely merely inanimate magnetite whiskers plus artifacts of transmission microscopy.

Of course, the presence of a real fossil bed or even living creatures on Mars, Titan or Europa would not prove evolution any more than the presence of life and fossils on this planet proves evolution. Having said that, it is pure, unadulterated speculation at this point whether such life or fossils exist. We have done next to no exploration of any planet other than our own, and most people incorrectly interpret the data we've seen on this planet in any event.


Originally posted by fanofsteel
The best bet for proof of that will be through the radio telscopes that are continuously scanning the skies above us.

I've always found this concept interesting, and when I was an evolutionist I even took part in SETI's free downloadable program intended to turn many personal computers into one big mega computer to decode the massive amount of data they receive.

Now that I'm a creationist, I find it interesting and even funny, but for an entirely different reason. As Gary Bates writes in his article, "SETI—coming in from the cold of space":



One would think that, to distinguish any signal from space that came from an intelligent source, it would need to contain coded information. (Any language system is coded information.) This would be a sign of intelligence because it always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence. Many years ago, the very first radio signal was received from space. It was called LGM-1. A regularly repeating blip had evolutionary astronomers very excited. Co-discoverer Jocelyn Bell Burnell said:

‘One of the ideas that we entertained was that it might be little green men—a civilization outside in space somewhere trying to communicate with us.’

LGM-1 actually stood for ‘Little Green Men-1,’ which gives you some indication of what they were expecting to find. However, the radio signal was from nothing more than a pulsar, a very dense object probably formed from a star that has undergone gravitational collapse. As it rapidly rotates, it emits regular ‘pulses’ of radio waves.

Despite the mega-billions of dollars spent on the search for extraterrestrial life, the simple fact is that the universe appears to be designed specifically for life in the only place we find it—the earth.

When these same scientists swap their telescopes for microscopes, and look at the DNA molecule contained in every living creature, they see highly coded information in the most complex language system in the universe. It’s the very same evidence of intelligence for which they are searching the heavens! They claim this information has evolved by chance, yet if they were to receive even an extremely simple ordered sequence from space, they would say it was a sign of intelligence!

How sad it is that a preconceived evolutionary worldview blinds them from seeing the true glory of the One who is the ultimate source of all knowledge—God the Creator.

‘For this is what the LORD says—he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other”’ (Isaiah 45:18).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1103seti.asp

[bigsmallvillefan89]

As a christian i believe that there is no life out there. I also believe we live in the last days as many have said.
For me, when in the bible it tells us how Jesus came down to save MEN ( meaning both female and male). If there were other people out there would it not be in the bible.
But in the end it comes down to if u believe what the bible says.
I dont know if this anything to do with aliens, but it has something to do with evolution.

If you are having a discussion with somebody who believes in evolution ask them were they there when it happened?
Meaning whwn the world was made.
They will say no were u
I have then learnt to say no but i know somebody who was.
Thought this was good.

Great discussion. Hope i dont offend anybodY. This is just my view.

[Sharkie]

I fail to see how evolution has anything to do with this topic.

[Yuui]

Those who believe that we are the only beings in all of our universe (as well as other universes) that have reached this intellectual status are truly deserving of the label, 'bigot'.

[IVISupermanIVI]

Dispite what you claim, all the sites and "evidence" provided" to prove that the Gospel tells all. It is indeed just a way of looking at science and trying to find a way to fit religion in. There is no evidence that says anything in scripture is real, it is a kin to Moby Dick. If you believe that science is out to destroy your blind belief then, please by all means ignore it. However, to claim that religion, essepecially the Christian one is based solely on helping people and telling gods will is an insult to everyone.

For One, Religion was put in place historically since the beginning of time, cave paintings and historical documents all point to religions that exsisted BEFORE Christianity. Did these people not exsist?

Secondly, In Egypt religion was used to keep people in check, to make people fear there leaders. Other religons sprung from this to spite the leaders of certian groups. Christianity has many sects within it's own religion all examples of people deciding that they did not like what others believed and decided to change the idea behind what they read.

That being said, Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible. If the world was created all at once and the only way for something to die would be through mans sin, then Dinosaurs and man would have lived at the same time. If you think this is true, institutionalism might be a good option for you. Fossel records are not faulty, in some instances cases have come up where things were dated to about 16,000 years ago concerning dinosaurs. This, information was provided BY the site that yeshuamyking7 posts in every one of his comments. This date is in direct violation of your claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old an no more. Aside from carbon dating there is still other ways to date fossils, such as what layer they are in on the planets soil. You would have to be rediculously jaded to think that both techniques were absolutely incorrect.

What scientific evidence was done on the events in the bible to prove them correct? Nothing has shown up proof positive, although I believe that it has been proven that Jesus exsisted. This is fine. In the name of Jesus, then I say I am the second coming and this is the end times. All follow under my will. What I just said is completely worth as much as anything written as scripture.

I AM TIRED of seeing people try to strech things to disprove science or philosophical views. The equation provided on the page, though it does not have definate numbers, the numbers estimated would be vast and can only be more. Because of this how does it not destory the argument that there cannot be other life somewhere in the universe?

If you were god, why would you create an infinate number of planets and only put life on one of them? Just to spite the rest of the universe? Because God likes to make fun of far off planets and mock them with his love for us and only us. All the rest is just for fun. What Jesus does on the days he can't get a tee time in heaven. "Hey Dad I'm gunna go play with the universe and make some more random planets that mean nothing just for the Hell of it. HAHA...oh man Hell of it...I am one hilarious messiah."

Dispite what you think, the Earth quite possibly might be no where near the center of the universe...infact it is possible that there is no center. It could be that the universe is a continueingly growing space that never ends.

There may be a parrell universe where the scripture is completely true. Hopefully you will have a chance to experience what Nietzshe calls "Eternal Reaccurance" and you will be placed in a universe after this life, where what you believe is undenyable. That being said, I was raised Roman Catholic and a good follower should question what he believes, if he did not, it would be a cult. If you want Demons to beam you up to their ship...Give me the number and I'll call them to pick you up right now.

This debate is rediculous and has NOTHING to do with religion.

On Topic: I think that it is more than likely that there is alien life in the universe, but I doubt they are within the constraints of our own imagination. Since all matter in the universe is the same, it would be safe to say that unless the enviroment they developed on is completely differant, we probably look similar.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by Yuui
Those who believe that we are the only beings in all of our universe (as well as other universes) that have reached this intellectual status are truly deserving of the label, 'bigot'.

This is a completely unnecessary and inflammatory statement. Bigotry clearly carries with it notions of racism, classism, etc., yet you are using it here in an entirely different context. This is the classic bait-and-switch approach, and I find it quite offensive.

I have not denied the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I have merely stated that such life could not have evolved elsewhere, because life did not evolve here. Evolution is scientifically impossible. I've listed a number of reasons for this elsewhere, so I won't do so here. I'd point you to any one of the sites I've mentioned. Do a search on the evolution/creationism debate, and actually take a look at the evidence on the other side. If you disagree with it, fine. But at least you'll be giving it the first hand rejection it deserves.

Given my faith, I would say that if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, it was necessarily created by Yahweh. Since no indication of this is given in Scripture, and every indication is given that we are alone in the universe in the Word, I'll continue to believe that until shown compelling evidence to the contrary.

This skepticism is not closed-mindedness. It's caution. Many evolutionists on this board and elsewhere have expressed the same caution with regard to extraterrestrial life and the UFO phenomenon. However, they are clearly more optimistic about it than I am, given their flawed evolutionary mindset.


Originally posted by Sharkie
I fail to see how evolution has anything to do with this topic.

Can you explain why not? I've certainly given several examples of why I believe it does, but I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer from an evolutionist about why it does not.

[IVISupermanIVI]

"Evolution is scientifically impossible." -yeshuamyking7

Are you kidding? Cells change from day to day in your body, they adapt to there enviroment. Cells change from generation to generation to adapt to the needs of the next enviroment. A change in the form of a living thing is apparent in all living life. Esspecially within our own species. We have varients of differant types of the same creatures. This in itself provides enough evidence with the application of common sense and intellegence, that through mutation species change to better live or survive. There is no reason to say it is scientifically impossible, because it absolutely is 100% possible. Stop saying you are providing evidence when you ignore all scientific discovery for the last 2000 years. Websites, that say what THEY think are not evidence. All knowledge is based on assumtion at some point and so is all faith. This is the thing you find faulty in science and it inturn is the same fault any religious follower has. They both must assume that at some point something they believe is correct, but have no way to continue living without assuming that the origin of their theory is correct. The problem with saying that about science, is that it is vastly more complex than reading a book and saying "THIS IS HOW IT IS! I HAVE NO REASON NOW TO WONDER!" In science, once one thing is proven, or considered concrete enough, it leads into something new and more compelling. Stories are not proof of anything. Stop saying it is.
-Jon

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Both sides in this little snit-fest are being a little closed minded.

Is there some scientific basis of support for evolutionary theory? Yes, or it would have been dismissed long ago. Is there reasonable doubt about this viewpoint? Again, yes - thus it is a theory.

Religion, as opposed to science, is not necessarily based upon empirical evidence. This is the concept of faith, that one can have a hope in something that is not seen, still beleive it is true despite the fact that it is not scientifically proven. Thus, it becomes a personal issue, one where each individual must satisfy their own criteria to place beleif in something. A wise person does not accept all things blindly, but does learn to trust certain sources of information.

Does scripture contain all truth? No, not by a long shot. I'm sitting right now in a library, surrounded by books covering topics that are only touched upon in Scripture if at all. Does this mean that scripture is unimportant or untrue? Again, no. It falls upon the individual to ascertain its truthfulness, and it becomes their own responsibility to apply these truths in their life.

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
Dispite what you claim, all the sites and "evidence" provided" to prove that the Gospel tells all.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in this first sentence, because it's not grammatically correct. What you have above is a sentence fragment. Do you mean,

"Despite what you claim, all the sites and 'evidence' provided attempts to prove that the Gospel tells all."

If this is the case, I don't see what the problem is. You obviously assume that the Gospel is false a priori, so I am simply pointing to evidence to the contrary. If you disagree with the evidence, that's fine, but simply stating that it takes a position regarding the Gospel is meaningless. Evolutionist-influenced critiques of the Scripture record also take a position regarding the integrity of the Word, yet you would be in favor of them.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
It is indeed just a way of looking at science and trying to find a way to fit religion in.

Actually, it's a way of looking at Scripture and seeing that it does not contradict true science. The history of the past several hundred years could be called a chronicle of compromise with regard to the scriptural world view, even among professed believers. Seeing supposed scientific conclusions that contradict the Bible, believers are faced with a series of options:

1. Reject the science

In this case, there are two different types of rejection. The first is a wholesale, ignorant rejection, which is the type you describe above. All creationists are painted by evolutionists as having taken this road, yet with the advent of modern scientific creationism, this is becoming less and less of a problem. Even still, the evolutionist community continues to regard creationists with contempt, professing that we reject all science when in fact we merely reject the anti-scientific theory of evolution, which is in effect a religion of cosmic naturalism, death, and disease.

The second way to reject the science is the same one used in the wider scientific community. Once a theory has sufficient empirical data weighing on it, it will eventually collapse. Some evolutionists are finally starting to realize this, and long-agers like Michael Behe are finally recognizing the salience of arguments for intelligent design.

Bear in mind that even in the first days of Darwin's Origin of the Species, there were Bible-believing scientists who stood up against the onslaught. Sadly, too many believers abandoned this pursuit, and now a sizable portion of professed believers accept evolution.

Of course, this doesn't really mean much. Most of the Western world accepts evolution without question. Even those who accept creationism often know of no legitimate scientific reason to back it up (even though such evidence exists in abundance). Given that the average person doesn't understand science well enough to have a reasoned debate on the subject, this is not surprising. People tend to accept whatever their told without question. This is what you accuse me of, however, I have done no such thing. I actually took the time to research scientific creationism, even though when believing friends of mine brought it up to me I was highly skeptical. It took about eight months of serious study before I even began to see the fatal errors of theistic evolutionism, and evolutionism in general.

2. Reject the faith

This case is even more sad, and so prevalent that I need not cite examples. This is the effect of opening the door to anti-Scripture world views. Once we reject part of Scripture, it's not much of a leap to the wholesale dismissal of the faith.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
There is no evidence that says anything in scripture is real, it is a kin to Moby Dick. If you believe that science is out to destroy your blind belief then, please by all means ignore it. However, to claim that religion, essepecially the Christian one is based solely on helping people and telling gods will is an insult to everyone.

Moby Dick is fiction. Melville wrote it as fiction to be interpreted as fiction. Scripture is historical. All the historical texts contained therein were written to be interpreted as history. If you reject that history, and you can present legitimate reasons for doing so, that's one thing. But don't debase it by rejecting it out of hand as fiction. That's just bad historical criticism.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
For One, Religion was put in place historically since the beginning of time, cave paintings and historical documents all point to religions that exsisted BEFORE Christianity. Did these people not exsist?

It seems to me to be stating the obvious that there were religions before Christianity. Yeshua was only born two thousand years ago, leaving many thousands of years between the Creation week and His birth. I have never denied that the Messianic faith in Yeshua predates other, older belief systems. However, this faith has its origins in the writings of the Old Testament, which from Genesis on proclaim the coming of the Messiah. Yeshua was one with the Father before time began, and it is He who was the Word Yahweh spoke to form the world we live in today (John 1:1-18).

Biblical faith has its origins with Adam and Eve, who worshipped Yahweh and only Him. It is only later that humankind fell into idolatry, which is evidence of the curse. This idolatry and evil was so prevalent in Noah's days that he and his immediate family were the only one's left who still worshipped Yahweh. This brought on the global Flood described in Genesis. We live in a similar time, when faith in Yahweh has decreased by an alarming rate, spurred in no small part by atheistic evolutionist dogma. Another Great Tribulation is coming. I only hope that when it does, those of you who now reject Yahweh will repent and draw near to Him. It's the only way you'll be saved.

I'll answer the dinosaur question along with the others you have asked when I contact you privately. I apologize for the delay, but it's been a pretty busy week. I don't have class tomorrow, so I'll be able to answer your questions more full then. Just quickly, though, to your general question about scientific evidence for the Bible. I'll point you to a series of articles about archaeology - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/archaeology.asp .

Also, I'll try to briefly clear up any confusion you might have about my views regarding the age of the earth. I've have never said that 6,000 years is a definite upper limit for the age of the earth. In fact, it's roughly the lower limit. There is a great deal of evidence, both Scriptural and scientific, to lend credibility to the idea that the upper limit is somewhere between 15,000-20,000 years. The world is probably not quite that old, but this allows for sufficient human error in the calculations. Please see the following article for a summary of the exciting conclusions of the RATE group (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth) -

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
I AM TIRED of seeing people try to strech things to disprove science or philosophical views.

Boy, Jon, I'll tell you - I get tired when people try to do this, too. I get tired of people rehashing outdated lines of reasoning to prove evolution and disprove the true science, creationism. I get tired of people blindly following society down its path to destruction. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person standing in the middle of a great river of false thought, flowing over a cliff. But then I remember that there are fish in that river, Jon. Fish like you. To save those I love (and that includes you and all of humanity), I have to stand in the gap, knowing that most will fall off that cliff but that Yahweh will use me to catch a few to place in the tranquil stream above.

[HuffyTheCampfireSlayer]

STOP GOING OFF TOPIC! This thread is NOT about Religion. It's about UFOs. If you don't believe in UFOs because of your religion then it's fine to say that. But DO NOT PREACH to everyone that you are right and they are wrong. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!

So please stop now. I will leave this open for now. But if ANYONE posts another lecture on here they will get a warning, or possibly BANNED, understood?

Now back on topic. Thank you.

[yeshuamyking7]

EDIT: Sorry, Huffy. I posted before I saw your thread. I'm happy to continue the discussion off the board.

--------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
The equation provided on the page, though it does not have definate numbers, the numbers estimated would be vast and can only be more. Because of this how does it not destory the argument that there cannot be other life somewhere in the universe?

I think I showed that every variable is based on unproven and even faulty assumptions. Since this is the case, the equation cannot be used to judge anything. It would be like saying that there is an equation that gives us the chemical composition of a substance, and then finding out that the equation is based on alchemy. One couldn't possibly say that the equation is useful, even if it is elegant and/or fits our preconceived notions of what the answer "should" be.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
If you were god, why would you create an infinate number of planets and only put life on one of them? Just to spite the rest of the universe? Because God likes to make fun of far off planets and mock them with his love for us and only us. All the rest is just for fun. What Jesus does on the days he can't get a tee time in heaven. "Hey Dad I'm gunna go play with the universe and make some more random planets that mean nothing just for the Hell of it. HAHA...oh man Hell of it...I am one hilarious messiah."

This line of reasoning is quite strange. First, you don't believe in Yahweh, so your understanding of Him is limited by that fact. I know Him personally, through my faith in His Son, although I would never claim to know all of His intentions or everything about Him. As a human being, this would be impossible. He is infinite. I am finite.

That being said, there are many things we can know about Him based on His Word. This is precisely why he gave the Word to us.

So, let's look at your argument more closely. You say that it is perhaps out of spite that Yahweh chose to create life only on this planet. I don't see how this makes any sense. It is not possible to emotionally injure an inanimate object. Besides which, Yahweh is not spiteful, nor is Yeshua. People are spiteful, Jon. By claiming that the Almighty could be spiteful, you have made Him in your own image. That's called idolatry.

So, why did Yahweh create us?

The short answer is “for His pleasure.” Revelation 4:11 says, “Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.” Colossians 1:16 reiterates the point: “All things were created by Him and for Him.”

Being made in the image and likeness of Yahweh (Genesis 1:27), human beings have the ability to know Him—and therefore love Him, worship Him, serve Him, and fellowship with Him. Yahweh did not create human beings because He needed them. As Elohim ("God"), He needs nothing. In all eternity past, He felt no loneliness, so He was not looking for a “friend.” He loves us, but this is not the same as needing us. If we had never existed, Yawheh would still be Elohim—the Unchanging One (Malachi 3:6).

The I AM THAT I AM (which is what the word "Yahweh" means) of Exodus 3:14 was never dissatisfied with His own eternal existence. When He made the universe, He did what pleased Him, and since He is perfect, His action was perfect. “It was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Also, He did not create “peers” or beings equal to Himself. Logically, He could not do so. If He were to create another being of equal power, intelligence, and perfection, then He would cease to be the One True Elohim for the simple reason that there would be two gods—and that would be an impossibility. “Yahweh, He is Elohim; there is none else beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). Anything that Yahweh creates must of necessity be lesser than He. The thing made can never be greater than the One who made it.

Recognizing the complete sovereignty and holiness of Yahweh, we are amazed that He would take man and “crown him with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:5), and that He would condescend to call us “friends” (John 15:14-15).

Yet He did more than just call us "friends." He sent His only Son to die for us, while we were in rebellion toward him.

Romans 5
6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Messiah died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But Yahweh demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Messiah died for us.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
Dispite what you think, the Earth quite possibly might be no where near the center of the universe...infact it is possible that there is no center. It could be that the universe is a continueingly growing space that never ends.

I believe in a finite universe, as do many evolutionists, so it would necessarily have a center. Whether this is the earth or not makes little difference to my faith. I find the idea interesting and even possible, but I am by no means dogmatic about it.

Notice that you have not stated anything definite about this either, but rather you have used phrases like "could be."


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
There may be a parrell universe where the scripture is completely true. Hopefully you will have a chance to experience what Nietzshe calls "Eternal Reaccurance" and you will be placed in a universe after this life, where what you believe is undenyable.

First, there is no such thing as a "parallel universe." I like science fiction as much as the next person, and I've studied a fair amount of string theory, but there is no solid empirical data to indicate the presence of multiple universes. This would be the condition one would expect given the Scripture record, and so I reject the idea completely.

That being said, I find it interesting that you would even entertain the possibility of reincarnation. I thought you regarded yourself as "scientific."

As for a universe where Scripture is infallible, we don't need to employ parallel universes to arrive at this conclusion. The one we have will suffice. Yahweh created it, and He ispired His Word. It is infallible in this universe, and there is no other.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
That being said, I was raised Roman Catholic and a good follower should question what he believes, if he did not, it would be a cult. If you want Demons to beam you up to their ship...Give me the number and I'll call them to pick you up right now.

Interesting ... when I contact you, I'd certainly be curious to know when and why you rejected Roman Catholocism. I, too, reject it, but I'm sure it is for different reasons.

As for your accusation that I am in a cult, I find this amusing. My entire life is spent questioning. It's a search for knowledge and truth that has led me to an unshakable belief in Yahweh and in the authority of Scripture. It is the average evolutionists who never questions his faith in the reliability of his religion of death.

However, I see no reason to question my own belief in the authority of Scripture. I have satisfied myself that the evidence is compelling. I'm happy to entertain questions from all serious critics, but as for me, I will serve Yahweh.


Originally posted by IVISupermanIVI
On Topic: I think that it is more than likely that there is alien life in the universe, but I doubt they are within the constraints of our own imagination. Since all matter in the universe is the same, it would be safe to say that unless the enviroment they developed on is completely differant, we probably look similar.

Again, you are proving my point about the connection between evolution and the belief in extraterrestrial life. Your belief in evolution leads you to the inexorable conclusion that life had to have developed on other planets. I say that the only way it exists is if Yahweh created it. This is a clear distiction drawn entirely based on our views about evolution.

[noleafclover]

You all know that this thread is going to get closed.

Never seem to understand that religion is not allowed here, and I see this discussion quickly turning into a mess.

[Mr Boejangles]

im surprised it hasnt been already.... less religious talk more ufo talk !!! :D

[HuffyTheCampfireSlayer]

yeshua, I will let you off, because I think you were posting as I typed my warning. But no more religious debating. That's very obviously not what this thread is for.

You may wish to edit your last thread. Otherwise people will just want to reply, and that will start the cycle again.

[Disco]

UFO's are simply Un-identified Flying Objects. It could be anything but people would rather it think it has to do with Aliens. I'm not denying that people have seen strange things. Those abducted tend to describe these so called aliens the same way as what has been fed to them via television and books and what people think aliens look like.

[TVHOG]

Let me tell you a funny story (to me anyway). I was outside one night with my telescope and looking to the southwest at a particularly bright star when I saw an object moving really fast. I thought it was a plane but it was moving way, way too fast. I tried to look at it with my telescope, but it there was no way. The thing has to be going like Mach 5 or 6 (probably faster). Anyway after watching the news I heard that the space shuttle was supposed to fly over that night, so thats the only thing I can figure. I guess it was a UFO to me, because I didnt know what it was.

Are we back on topic now?

[yeshuamyking7]

Originally posted by HuffyTheCampfireSlayer
yeshua, I will let you off, because I think you were posting as I typed my warning. But no more religious debating. That's very obviously not what this thread is for.

You may wish to edit your last thread. Otherwise people will just want to reply, and that will start the cycle again.

That's fine by me, Huffy. However, I think I'll leave it there if that's alright. Since you've told people to stop talking about it, it's not really my fault if they continue. I've stated several times that I'm happy to continue the discussion off the board, and anyone who wishes to respond to what I've written can feel free to contact me in private.

Since we're telling funny UFO stories, I thought I'd share one of my own.

I have a boat, and late at night one time I was sitting with my head up on my bunk. The aft hatch was open, so I could see outside, and I noticed a red light moving back and forth in the sky. Just a quick explanation, I have very little depth perception because of a "lazy eye" condition. Anyway, I thought the light was in the sky, because it was so dark. It turns out it was mast light from the boat next to mine, but since it was so dark, I couldn't see the mast, only the light. :) So, I guess for a split second I saw a UFO until I realized what an idiot I am. :lol:

I'm not sure if any of you have done this, but sometimes after I've seen an alien related movie or documentary, and then I watch the stars, I look for UFOs. :)

[priegog]

Wow, too bad I got here AFTER the warning. Is there any thread around here where you are currently discussing this matters, yeshuamyking7? I'd really like to get into that subject with you.
Back on topic (or else this will be closed)
Letting my personal beliefs aside (because I can no longer state them), I certainly believe It is possible for life to develop in another planets. Not to go too far, I believe we are just a few years away from discovering that life has actually existed all along in our neighbour Mars. What I don't believe is that any sorts of aliens would be coming here. First, beacuse Intelligence is not something that will always happen when life is present, and even if there are other intelligent covilizations, no matter how super-advanced they are, I think there are some physical barriers that cannot be overcome to make that sort of long distance traveling. And I am not talking about the modern theories of physics since those are changing all the time, but it just seems intuitive to think that millions and millions of light year's distances cannot be overcome by any kind of technology. And my final argument. EVEN if they were, alive, intelligent, and advanced enough to come all the way here, they would most certainly not be doing what you claim they are doing. They would either try to make, contact/communicate/negotiate, or, if they were to study us, like some think, they would not let be seen AT ALL. And faulty spaceships is not an excuse fpr that kind of civilization.

[Slade]

Aliens? How can we possibly be alone.

Talk instigating a religious argument in this thread will not be tolerated

[yeshuamyking7]

:rolleyes: Whatever, Slade. I guess it's okay to express anti-religious views, just not religious ones.

[priegog]

Well, sarcasm doesn't help.
Dont get mad, i just believe you are a bit on the agressive side, yeshuamyking7

[yeshuamyking7]

I'm not mad about anything, priegog. I'm simply expressing my beliefs about the one-sided nature of censorship on this board. Slade's comments on the previous page have been left standing since yesterday, with no moderator questioning his anti-God statements, and no member rushing to chide him like they do with me.

I'm definitive in my views, and I state them clearly. If that's labeled "agression," then so be it. I don't see it that way.

My point is that my views on this subject are based on my beliefs. Stating so is labeled off-topic and condemned. Slade's anti-religious statements, on the other hand, aren't questioned at all.

[priegog]

Well, alright. And hey, we're on the same side. I'm a believer, too, with the difference that I don't see why evolution must be exclusive with the creationist point of view. I know it doesn't explain everything (and now in college i'm finding that out everyday myself), but I believe it is certainly one of the ways God shows his hand here. About them banning the religious talk, well, they are kinnda right in the fact that this is a thread about UFOs. And just like you state your beliefs, and there's nothing wrong with it. I got to tell you that it does seem you do it in a kind of agressive way. And about the ban being one-sided, well, maybe they haven't been here to read what he said, or maybe those little comments dont matter (or maybe it is because his comment had actually something to do with UFOs).

[yeshuamyking7]

His comment consisted of 15 words. Eight of them were mocking God. As a believer, I'm not sure how you could defend that.

The thread is about UFOs. I've simply pointed out that one's faith and the issue of evolution and creation has something to do with that debate. I was perfectly willing to continue that debate elsewhere, but didn't get any takers. Then, after I left the debate, it stopped getting posts. That is until Slade decided to interject his anti-God sentiment. As a believer in God, and a believer in fairness, I couldn't fail to respond to that. If I'm supposed to shut up about my beliefs as they pertain to this debate, then he ought to do the same.

In any event, his comment about God had nothing whatsoever to do with UFOs. It was merely an attack on believers, and on God. I won't stand for that, and you shouldn't either.

[priegog]

Well, excuse me, but I was most certainly not defending him. Let's just say I tend not to give a lot of importance when people who don't know of give a damn make that kind of comments. And you better not be suggesting I'm a mediocre believer. I should know. I may not make my username about it, but I am certainly not. Just try to have some fun here. You can't convert everyone here.
Yes this thread seems to be pretty dead, alright.

[IVISupermanIVI]

Everyone I think should just drop it. This argument creates too much hostility and no one gives up on it. I abandoned this thread because of it. No one wants to be on topic.
-Jon

[yeshuamyking7]

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm simply pointing out that it was not me who was being sarcastic and flippant. It was Slade. I don't apreciate his comments, and I stated so. I don't see how there is anything wrong with that.

Fun has its place, priegog, but I don't see anything funny about mocking our Creator.

[priegog]

I know, IVISupermanIVI, you are right. I'm not arguing, tho. besides, if i recall correctly you did quite a lot of arguiing back there... all right, I'll shut up.
yeshuamyking7, all right, then let's just drop this.

[yeshuamyking7]

Fine by me. That's what I had done until Slade came along.

[Sharkie]

The moderators can't be everywhere, if it offended you that much, report it. What he said is against the rules in my eyes.

[yeshuamyking7]

I reallize that, Sharkie, but I think that given that it's been there on the top of the topics since 2:56 AM yesterday morning, there's a good chance it's been viewed already. My initial posts were viewed and condemned the same day I made them, not by moderators but by others. The same doesn't seem to hold true for those who make anti-God statements.

[IVISupermanIVI]

"It's not a democracy, It's a cheerocracy."
-Jon

[yeshuamyking7]

:) Ok, I'm not sure what that means in this context, but great movie nonetheless. :lol:

[Big Albowski]

Mods can't see everything instantly!!! If you have an issue with a thread or a post, report the post!
DO NOT argue about it within the thread!!!!
NOW... BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!!

Al