adamelijah’s whereIstand Blog

I don’t watch Television, but this episode of TV’s House, has created quite a buzz:

In sum, Dr. Gregory House is one of television’s premier anti-heroes. This has been problematic from a moral standpoint for most of the life of this series, because this utterly despicable character always proves right and wise in the end. He may be a wretched person, but he is always to be admired for his dogged pursuit of medical salvation, never mind that he is willing to do anything, including nearly killing patients in order to find his answers, which viewers recognize are answers he often seeks to understand his own miserable condition. Some of the other leading characters are nearly as reprehensible from a moral standpoint. I had been ready to swear off the show completely after the March 27 episode in which two handsome members of House’s resident team, Drs. Allison Cameron and Robert Chase, began having on-the-job sex and made it clear that this is no-commitment, strictly recreational fun.

In Fetal Position, the anti-hero feature of the Dr. House character is turned on its head, resulting in a stunning triumph for the pro-life argument. In the story, famous celebrity photographer Emma Sloan, five months pregnant, is rushed to the hospital suffering from what appears to be a stroke. Through the usual series of misdiagnoses and process of elimination, House and his team eventually come to the conclusion that serious medical issues with Ms. Sloan’s baby are the cause of her mysterious illness and she will die unless the pregnancy is terminated. The mother adamantly refuses and finds support from House’s main antagonist, Chief-of-Medicine Dr. Lisa Cuddy, like Ms. Sloan a single career woman who herself has been struggling to become pregnant late in life. For once, Dr. Cuddy does not cave in to House’s pressures, but personally intervenes to take the most risky and highly unapproved methods to save the unborn baby’s life.

House angrily insists throughout the episode on calling the baby a "fetus" and not a "baby," and makes every classic pro-abortion argument possible, including that the organism in the womb is not a baby but a dangerous growth, a parasitic "tumor." But when he is finally convinced to perform lifesaving surgery on the child still in the womb, the tiny infant grasps his finger, shaking him to his core and leaving no mistake that this is a precious little human being. The extraordinary procedures save the lives of both mother and son.

Following the surgery, the mother thanks House for saving them, but he replies, "Don’t thank me. I would have killed him." The episode ends with House returning to his solitary home, gently and pensively rubbing the finger that was touched by the infant child. Meanwhile, the mother is shown some weeks or months later, playing joyfully with her baby.

It’s created quite a stir across the Internet. Did we just see what we thought we saw? A portrayal of the humanity of the unborn. Yes, indeedy. And it’s certainly not a fanciful one as Jill Stanek points out. A picture, well known among pro-life circles was taken of an unborn child reaching out during a surgery. Culture has changed where in the most unlikely of sources, we can find an understanding of the unborn’s humanity.

whereIstand Tags

• When does life begin?

An article appears in the Washington Post that is worth noting:

Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans’ fundamental freedoms.

Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.

Some of us therefore seek permission to leave…

It’s quite simple. The United States has destroyed the 10th Amendment, which says that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The present movement for secession has been gathering steam for a decade and a half. In preparation for Vermont’s bicentennial in 1991, public debates — moderated by then-Lt. Gov. Howard Dean — were held in seven towns before crowds that averaged 230 citizens. At the end of each, Dean asked all those in favor of Vermont’s seceding from the Union to stand and be counted. In town after town, solid majorities stood. The final count: 999 (62 percent) for secession and 608 opposed.

In early 2003, transplanted Southerner and retired Duke University economics professor Thomas Naylor gave a speech at Johnson State College opposing the Iraq war. When he pitched the idea of secession to the crowd, he saw many eyes "light up," he said. Later that year, he and several others started a loosely organized movement (now a think tank) called the Second Vermont Republic, which has an independent quarterly journal, Vermont Commons, and a Web site. ..

This is odd to me because I’ve been toying with a novel in which Vermont secedes from the Union. To see some people actually talking about making it a reality is amazing. Perhaps, it’s the greatest proof of the size of the rift between America’s right and left. The secession talk I fear will continue to grow. Vermont is the most likely one to consider leaving, but there are others. 

What has held back secession heretofore have been two key things:

1) The institutional memory of the horror of the Civil War.  No one in their right mind wishes to repeat them.

2) Internal mobility of the American people. Americans no longer live in one state their whole lives. Half the people or more from Idaho are from somewhere else originally. Everyone I know has lived in different states, worked in different states. That lack of state loyalty makes disunion harder.

Had this been the 19th Century with the same types of conflict, our country would be at war, but these restraining forces have held us back. Will they do so forever? I fear not. The levies are giving way. I fear a flood will come soon.

Hat Tip: Save the GOP

whereIstand Tags

• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?

Mister E and I continue our debate on "Life, the Universe, and Everything"  with E’s latest post:

Mister E writes:

When friends of mine read the argument Adam and I have been having, the most frustrating thing they find (and Carol even said something about this) is people using bible quotes to talk about galaxies, life on other planets, and interstellar travel.

Perhaps, your friends need reading comprehension classes, as I’ve not been doing that. I’ve examined our discussions and I found two Bible quotes. 

In one post, you make an argument that the Christian God is only for Earth and I respond. You then make an argument about the nature of God and I respond with scripture. You ask theological questions, you get theological answers. In one case, I use scripture to argue as to the scope of who God is and the nature of God irregardless of galaxies, life on other planets, etc.

The bible was written a very long time ago, back in a time when we thought stars were crystals not that far away, and that the sun revolved around Earth. The vastness of the universe wasn’t close to being understood for thousands of years when this special book was written.

Actually, you’re right that Astronomy was very behind the times. After the Old Testament had been finished, the Greek Astronomer Hipparchus counted around 1,000 stars for his catalogue. In the 17th Century, Keplar counted 1005. 

However, does this mean the Bible was out of date on this point?

In Genesis, when God spoke to the patriarchs, He wanted to signal just how numerous the children of Israel would be. They would grow to be a mighty people of a large number. How did he communicate this largeness:

And He brought him forth outdoors and said, "Look now toward heaven and count the stars, if thou be able to number them." And He said unto him, "So shall thy seed be."-Genesis 15:7

So was God saying, "Abraham, you’ll have 1,000 descendants!" No, that wasn’t a big deal. He was say that Abraham’s seed would be uncountable.

Then in Genesis 22:17, he’s even more explicit:

in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.

So, he compares the Stars of the Heaven to the sands by the seashore, something people would understand. On each seashore are billions upon billions of grains of sand and he compares stars to sands on the seashores.

Job 22:12 has something interesting to say about the stars: 

"Is not God in the height of heaven? And behold the height of the stars, how high they are!

In saying, "How high they are?" they recognized these stars were not close by. They were very, very far away. Yes, I’m quoting up Bible verses, but you made statements about the Bible, so let’s actually quote rather than going off generalities that aren’t based on a study of it.

This is seriously stupid, and I don’t know why I’m even bothering to put down this ridiculous statement, but radio waves being sent through the amazingly vast, complicated, tumultuous, and harried topography of space would have to be a pretty damn strong to be received by us. Adam clearly hasn’t gotten the concept yet of how vast space is. We have deeply photographed and understood less than a few percent of the sky.

Not to mention the mutability of time, who knows how fast or slow time is relative to the distance between us and "them".

But even if we were to receive a radio message from a location that we would be able to calculate, such as Andromeda, all it would mean is that there is intelligent life out there. It hardly puts a dent in evolution. Our specific evolution can only be described in terms of Earth…

Maybe you should tell the government to stop wasting money on SETI, because that’s the foundational support for finding extra-terrestial life. Regarding Radio waves, Northwestern University states:

Actually, radio waves travel very quickly through space. Radio waves are a kind of electromagnetic radiation, and thus they move at the speed of light. The speed of light is a little less than 300,000 km per second. At that speed, a beam of light could go around the Earth at the equator more then 7 times in a second.

It requires no strength of equipment to be able to reach into space, ordinary ham radio operators have done it. The radio waves travel into space because it’s part of the electromagnetic spectrum and they go at the speed of life.

If we could reach a star by travelling to it at light speed for five billion years, we should have received something through the SETI Program. The only way alien civilization is at all probable is if either they developed at about the same stages as us and therefore there hasn’t been time for their signals to travel (stinks to be a sci-fi fanboy in that case.) or we’re dealing with a much younger universe than evolutionists would care to deal with.

I love it. Has Adam never turned on his television? We have a wealth of eyewitness testimony that UFOs have visited us. In fact, its much more reliable because its more modern than say, a prostitute’s testimony from 2000 years ago. Give me a break, there’s nothing there to support any of the voodoo Christianity teaches.

Actually, not really. You yourself have stated you don’t believe we’ve been visited, which means you don’t find their testimony credible, and there are reasons for that. Sane people can state, "I saw a UFO." A UFO is simply an Unidentified Flying Object. The term implies no origin. It could be a UFO which is a government aircraft but hasn’t been identified. It could be an optical allusion. When we here from people who claim to have "been on the Mothership" lack credability and few people buy it. 

Also, the use of time is not really an effective argument. If we sat on a jury today and we heard a witness who was credible, if the case files were opened would that testimony be less credible for the passage of 2000 years:

JP Holding has a piece on how impossible the creation of Christianity is to explain and how it doesn’t work as a "made up" system:

tuning. The most important martyrs are those of the time of Jesus and shortly thereafter. Admittedly there are few examples of this sort of martyrdom that we may point to — records of church tradition are our only source for the martyrdoms of many of the Apostles; our best witness is actually Paul himself, who testifies that he persecuted the church with "zeal" — using a word used to describe the actions of the Maccabbeeans who killed when needed to clean things up.

But in fact we can broaden this argument further: persecution did not automatically equal martyrdom, and this is yet another reason why Christianity should not have thrived and survived. As Robin Lane Fox writes, "By reducing the history of Christian persecution to a history of legal hearings, we miss a large part of the victimization." [Fox.PagChr, 424] Beyond action by authorities, Christians could expect social ostracization if they stuck by their faith, and that is where much of the persecution Fox refers to came from - rejection by family and society, relegation to outcast status. It didn’t need to be martyrdom — it was enough that you would suffer socially and otherwise, even if still alive. DeSilva notes that those who violated the current social values (as Christians indeed did!) would find themselves subject to measures designed to shame them back into compliance — insult, reproach, physical abuse, whipping, confiscation of property, and of course disgrace — much more important in an honor-and-shame society than to us. And the NT offers ample record of such things happening [Heb. 10:32-4; 1 Pet. 2;12, 3;16, 4:12-16; Phil. 1:27-30; 1 Thess. 1:6, 2:13-14; 2 Thess. 1:4-5; Rev. 2:9-10, 13].

So it is: The Jews would dislike you, the Romans would dislike you, your family would disown you, everyone would avoid or make sport of you. Furthermore, men like Paul and Matthew, and even Peter and John, gave up lucrative trades for the sake of a mission that was all too obviously going to be nothing but trouble for them. It is quite unlikely that anyone would have gone the distance for the Christian faith at any time — unless it had something tangible behind it.

This one has been brought up many times, but it bears repeating and elaboration. If Christianity wanted to succeed, it should never have admitted that women were the first to discover the empty tomb or the first to see the Risen Jesus. It also never should have admitted that women were main supporters (Luke 8:3) or lead converts (Acts 16).

Many have pointed out that women were regarded as "bad witnesses" in the ancient world. We need to emphasize that this was not a peculiarity as it would be seen today, but an ingrained stereotype. As Malina and Neyrey note, gender in antiquity came laden with "elaborate stereotypes of what was appropriate male or female behavior." [72] Quintilian said that where murder was concerned, males are more likely to commit robbery, while females were prone to poisoning. We find such sentiments absurd and politically incorrect today — but whether they are or not, this was ingrained indelibly in the ancient mind. "In general Greek and Roman courts excluded as witnesses women, slaves, and children…According to Josephus…[women] are unacceptable because of the ‘levity and temerity of their sex’." [82] Women were so untrustworthy that they were not even allowed to be witnesses to the rising of the moon as a sign of the beginning of festivals! DeSilva also notes [33] that a woman and her words were not regarded as "public property" but should rather be guarded from strangers — women were expected to speak to and through their husbands. A woman’s place was in the home, not the witness stand, and any woman who took an independent witness was violating the honor code.

It would have been much easier to put the finding of the tomb on the male disciples (as seems to have been emphasized, based on the 1 Cor. 15 creed, though that serves a different purpose of establishing that the church’s leadership was a witness to the Risen Christ, not so much an avoidance of the female witnesses), or someone like Cleophas or even Nicodemus, find the tomb first, or to mediate the witness through Peter or John. But they were apparently stuck with this — and also apparently overcame yet another stigma…

He’s got 14 other points and concludes with this:

I propose that there is only one, broad explanation for Christianity overcoming these intolerable disadvantages, and that is that it had the ultimate rebuttal — a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus’ honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death. It had certainty that could not be denied; in other words, enough early witnesses (as in, the 500!) with solid and indisputable testimony (no "vision of Jesus in the sky" but a tangible certainly of a physically resurrected body) and ranks of converts slightly after the fact (the thousands at Pentecost) who made it harder to not believe than to believe. Skeptics and critics must explain otherwise why, despite each and every one of these factors, Christianity survived, and thrived. A consistent witness, one that was strong enough to reach into the second century in spite of these factors, is the only reasonable candidate.

I think there’s much to be said for this. Of the 11 remaining disciples, 10 were martyred, while the other one was sorely persecuted. None renounced the faith. What are the odds? Had they stolen Christ’s body, and they knew he was not risen, they all died for something they knew to be a lie. They couldn’t simply have hallucinated the resurrection because if they went out shouting he was risen and there was a body to contradict them, it would be the end of them. 

The evidence for Christianity is that certain historic truths are at the core of that faith. If Christ was not risen, the body would have been produced as evidence to that end. That it was not suggests something quite miraculous occurred. 

Regarding why Jahweh can’t be the powerful multi-dimensional alien, Mister E is willing to believe in:

The basic tenants of science state that matter can not be created nor destroyed. Some other proofs that leave no room for a Christian god: Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy, Enthalpy, Newton’s laws of motion, Newton’s laws of cooling (thermodynamics), astrophysics, the existence of other religions, lack of any evidence anywhere of any divine power… the list goes on.

Entropy is quite interesting as you believe that the world moved from disorder (chaos)  to order through undirected natural forces, which itelf contraditicts entropy. You also run into this little problem with evolution. if matter can neither be created or destroyed. Because at some point, you had all these bubbling gasses sitting on the Earth at the beginning of time. Where they’d come from? How did they get there? At some point, we’re left with this amazing situation where matter sits as an uncaused, supplied by nothing for no reason and came from nowhere. 

The existence of other religions does not prove God wrong, incorrect, or non-existent anymore than the existence of the British disproved George Washington.

whereIstand Tags

• adamelijah
• MisterE
• Is there intelligent life on other planets?
• Are religious beliefs vital to society?
• Should schools teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

First, I’ll begin by saying that this debate with Mister E has been one of the most enjoyable I’ve had here on WIS. Though, we may be winding down, I have to appreciate my distinguished opponent’s ability to limit himself to 1-2 Ad hominems per post.  In all seriousness, it has been fun, even though we’re headed towards the logical limits of this debate. 

Anyway, Mister E writes:

I never said that the vastness of the Universe is proof that life exists on other planets. In fact, I never said that life on other planets does exist. All I said is that it is highly improbable, if not STATISTICALLY impossible that it doesn’t.

Your position on WIS is that there is Intellient Life on other planets. That’s what the debate’s about. You move it to undecided and then you’re not arguing for that. The debate is being framed by the position you took.

Yikes! Where do I start? If the average solar system size is 100 planets??????? Then there are 100 billion stars per galaxy, and in the entire universe we have 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.

Let me clarify, Mister E. You stated that there were 100 Billion Solar systems in the galaxy and then later postulated that there were 10 Trillion planets in the Galaxy as part of an argument. You argued that even if the odds were 1 in 10 Trillion that there could be a planet housing intelligent life in every galaxy. I was simply making the point that 1 Trillion planets is far more realistic.

Additionally, Adam cannot invent probabilities. My claim that 1 planet out of a trillion could support life is abitrary. Adam claiming that that is wrong and it should be 1 in a quadrillion has no base and is more or less meaningless.

Not my claim, it was the claim of scientists who studied the necessities of intelligent life and calculated the odds of them appearing on one planet. 

I don’t see the point in saying this. I already made it very clear that the universe is a big place. Obviously, we won’t be able to communicate with anybody, or even know that they exist (the distance stars we see are actually just images of their past, since it takes hundreds of millions of years for light to travel to us, we’re looking at stars hundreds of millions of years ago). It would take an awful long time for an instant message to reach another galaxy, longer than we’ve been around for sure.

My point is that we’ll never have anything other than speculation and odds, and never be able to prove anything.

I’m sorry, but that is just stupid. I hate to use a such a strong word, but its warranted here. I know for any intelligent reader I wouldn’t need to explain why, but I will anyway. Receiving sound waves from an alien culture is not a requisite for understanding evolution.

Here’s where I see the problem. Evolution is a process that makes no sense in a short period of time. Certainly, no one would believe that in 100 or even a thousand years, you go from goo to man. 

Evolution depends on what Richard Dawkins describes as "lucky chances" through natural selection over the last several billion years. Let us suppose for a moment that in the Andromeda Galaxy there’s an advanced society that’s been around above and beyond the level of 20th Century Earth for millions of years. Does this present a problem for evolutionary theory? You bet. Because if they’ve been generating radio signals for 2 million years, we should have gotten the signals as there’s been enough time for the radio waves to travel through space. Certainly, such a finding would do no favor for a literal reading of Creation, though many people actually advocate for a creation where the days weren’t literal. Evolutionary theory as an explanation for life would breakdown because what’s believable in 5 Billion years is certainly not believe in 2 million. 

Indeed, given the estimated age of the Universe used by evolutionists of 13 billion years, we should receive something recognizable. Radio waves travelling through space for more than 5 billion years should have been picked up by SETI long ago. That it hasn’t been picked up would suggest that there are no alien lifeforms for thousands of galaxies around. A younger age of the Earth opens more opportunities, but also makes evolution unworkable.

Exactly. That is my point. There is no evidence that there is a god, or that there are aliens living on other planets. We can only appeal to logic, statistics, and reason.

I would suggest we have a wealth of eyewitness testimony, inferences in nature, etc. to back up a God. Aliens, we really have very little to support.

My faith is in the probability of other life out there, and that discovering such a thing would rid us of the problems conservative Christianity created with its self-centered, hate-mongering, bigoted, anti progressive forcefulness. The imbued imposition of morality and forced obedience is for a world of yore, not for modern times. Religion is a method of control, and is a fantastic way of controlling a mass of people. Imagine everyone being afraid that god would kick their ass if they got out of line.

My friend you need to read your history. The time before Christ included human sacrifice, exposing infants, and grave tyranny on the whole Earth. It was the Christian faith that brought hospitals and institutions of Charity. What you call progressivism isn’t, it is rather a return to a darker time. What has been before shall be again, there is nothing new under the son. -Ecclesiastes.

Indeed. I don’t doubt for a minute that Earth needs to discover something greater that what we are, especially in such a time of violence, greed, and hatred. As a scientist, I know that the Christian god is a myth, an idea that was created not to be believed in literally, but to represent our quest for understanding. It would be silly to think of the entire universe as the playground of the Christian god. I am not adverse to the idea that there is an extremely powerful, inter-dimensional alien being out there with intelligence, but I know that its not Jahweh.

Because you don’t want it to be? How do you know this? What scientific proof leads you to that conclusion?

There is a lot of deaths in this universe. Entire clusters of stars explode, destroyed thousands upon thousands of planets in its wake. Even here on Earth, billions of species have died off, more than the number of people who have ever lived on Earth. If god was in control of all of this, than he would have killed countless living things. Our universe is much more about destruction than anything else. Adam’s god seems to be not so loving as he would have you believe.

Kind of makes an assumption, that there’s life on these other planets. If they’re just rocks who cares? Species die out on Earth because of man and because of sin. Yet, God is the One who will restore and heal. As scripture says, "All creation groaneth and travaileth in pain until now."

whereIstand Tags

• adamelijah
• MisterE
• Is there intelligent life on other planets?
• Are religious beliefs vital to society?
• Should schools teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

That’s Mister E’s latest argument, but let’s go through this as we have for the past few days: 

Our planet is a large place. Think about it. It takes 4 to 6 hours to fly from the east coast of the United States to the west coast (depending on tail winds). In a standard airplane, you’re traveling around 500 mph ground speed. Thats pretty damn fast.

The whole globe is roughly 40 thousand KM in circumference, or 24854 miles. At 500 miles an hour, it would take you 50 hours to fly around the entire circumference of the globe. That is a day and a half of flying. Imagine how much space you are covering in that flight, how many places to live, to grow, to build houses and cities.

It is 93 million miles to the Earth’s sun. It would take 186,000 hours or 7750 days in that same plane to fly to the sun. We are already into numbers that we can’t comprehend. Earth is situated in the boondocks of the milkyway galaxy. We’re talking way the hell out on an insignificant spiral arm, on one edge. To travel the diameter of the milkyway, it would take 80,000 to 100,000 years at light speed to reach the edge… at 500 mph hour it would take 11,758,000,000,000,000 hours or 48,991,666,666,666 days, or 134,223,744,292 years. Seeing as the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old, a plane flight to the other edge of the galaxy is quite a ways.

In the VISIBLE universe, we have about one hundred billion galaxies. I know it is impossible, but imagine all that space, most of which is actually empty. But if you were to look at one of the beautiful photographs of other galaxies or the Hubble deep space photos of portions of galaxy clusters, you can get a great sense of just how magnificent our known universe is. But above all things, its big beyond reason.

Let us say that out of the 10 trillion theoretical planets in our Milky Way, let us assume that one is capable of sustaining intelligent life, and that is our basis for statistical analysis. One in ten trillion is a pretty conservative ratio. Since there are about one hundred billion galaxies in the KNOWN universe, that makes one hundred billion planets capable of sustaining life.

So you can make your own assumptions, but it is important for you to understand just how immense of a place we are talking about.

Earth is extremely insignificant, let alone individual life on Earth. We live so far out on one of the arms of the Milky Way, so far away from the center of anything at all, it is silly to assume that we are the center of all intelligent life in the universe.

The argument of the vastness of the Universe as proof that life on Earth is somehow common is silly. Also, given the prior statement of 100 billion solar systems in the Galaxy, I find the estimate of 10 Trillion planets (average Solar system size: 100 planets) to be absurd and the odds are not 1 in 10 trillion but one in a 1000 Trilion, which if we assume other life is in the Universe, they are at best 1000 Galaxies away from us, a distance that is almost certainly unable to be bridged. To give you an idea (since no one travels in space at airplane speed), travelling at the speed of light, it would take 2.2 million years to reach the Andromeda Galaxy. If you got lucky and found life after travelling through 100 galaxies, it would take around 220 million years. to get there. 

In addition, if evolutionary theory is correct than the SETI project should have received some intelligible sound waves from an alien culture in our galaxy and several other galaxies. But we’ve not. 

There is simply no evidence. for what’s being proposed other than supposition. 

So where does God fit in I wonder? Adam wishes to argue about science, but then defers to religion, which amounts to a wishy washy argument at best.

God is the creator of it all wherever and whatever it all is. 

This is getting at the core of this whole argument, which I appreciate. It is this kind of scrutiny I wish people like Adam would apply to everything. But they don’t. They get frustrated when people suggest things that threaten their faiths, so they try and use scientific tactics against those same people. But it is a contradiction, for if they would just turn that same scientific scrutiny inwards towards their own mystic belief, they’d see that it can’t hold up to any principles of physics or reality. When there is hard core proof of Jahweh, Jesus, Moses, a burning bush, the resurrection and so on, let me know, otherwise, its just plain silly.

You’re dealing in two different areas. You see, I can’t prove God (Jesus or Moses, there’s quite a bit of evidence) to an nth degree of certainty but faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Faith doesn’t need establish beyond reasonable doubt, because at that level of establishing faith, it’s no longer faith but proven fact.

The evidence we have had handed down to us is good. The amazing occurances that surround the resurrection, the strong manuscript evidence on the New Testament, the witness of men and women throughout history, those living today. Then we add onto that, the evidence of how Christianity has advanced society from the depths of paganism and human sacrifice.  Some of us from personal experience know there’s a God, even though our evidence can’t be tested in a laboratory.  

However, in comparing to them, what you’re saying is that your faith is in the existence of aliens, like my faith is in Christ. Seems to prove my point.

My suggestions that there should be intelligent life on other planets are based on the only evidence we can gather, which is statistics and a better understanding of our own origins.

In essence, merely a postulate.

Indeed, there is no evidence that aliens exist, or that God exists. None. Not a shred. Only stories, feelings, and fancy guessing. But I have shown it is much more plausible to imagine extra terrestrial life than an all powerful super being that doesn’t adhere to the laws of physics. My belief in aliens COULD be a substitute for God, and an equally if not more valid one, and there is no way that it could be proven otherwise, and that is my point.

Well, that  does leave us with something though, doesn’ t it? Something far more profound than you realize. What it suggests is that in man is a knowledge that Earth is not the end of all things. When we talk about Vulcans coming and saving us from our destructive tendencies, doesn’t it say something about our need for a savior from above? 

These are fundamental questions. And where I would postulate is that every person on some level sees the world for what it is: a mess that teeters on the brink, full of corruption and cruelty. We’re not blind to these facts and we’re all searching for the answer. Some see it in a garantuan state that fixes our problems. Some see the answer in building a giant marketplace where people can have the unfettered right to sell their goods and services, and take control of their own destiny. Some see the answer in Aliens coming from outerspace, a distant world not touched by humanity’s evil side, and leading us to a new enlightment. And some lay their trust in the Lord God.  

We’ve been made with a nature that seeks help from something higher than ourselves. I would suggest that the reason for that is that it’s a spiritual hunger given to us by God, and will be satified by nothing but him. Sure, we may try other things, but none will completely fill that which the Almighty is meant to.

Western religions do not take any of this into account. None of it. Its all about Earth. If Yaweh were real, why does he have no history of operating outsides the confines of our insignificant neighborhood in the greater scheme of things.

If there were intelligent life on other planets, He would operate there, but why would he give us a history of it? Various parts of the Bible have been confirmed by archaeological evidence. Were the Bible itself to contain stories of another planet, what would most Atheists say, particularly in the 19th Century when most believed there were only a few hundred stars? God has always been concerned with "need to know" and how then we should live rather than explaining the entire ball of wax (which we won’t understand if it were all explained.)

In the third example, Adam says that if we were to find a planet exactly like Earth with DNA and all that, it would suggest that God just simply made two Earths. But this of course does not align with a Christian god, since Jahweh exists only for Earth.

Actually, scripture doesn’t say that. In Hebrews 11:3 says:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

A pretty good first Century understanding of the Atomic structure of life if you ask me. God is Universal and can be where he wants and do what he wants in the Universe, but I need far more than postulation to believe he’s created intelligent life elsewhere, given how hard it’s existence is here.

whereIstand Tags

• adamelijah
• MisterE
• Is there intelligent life on other planets?
• Are religious beliefs vital to society?
• Should schools teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

I do owe a slight apology to Mister E for not getting to his main point in Monday Night’s post. To be fair, this seemed to be a problem for Mister E. However, let me indulge in a couple of points. Early in his post, Mister E makes this statement:

But its Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan versus Ted Haggard and Bill O’reilly. Honestly, extremely accomplished, sophisticated, educated, and studied people like Hawking or Sagan hold more wait in the court of opinion than religious zealots. You see, superstition is a belief in something without evidence.

Now, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "I’ve watched Stephen Hawking, and you sir, are no Stephen Hawking."  The statement amounts to little more than an ad hominem. If I’m like Bill O’Reilly (than I will soon have $15 million a year), how about letting the readers determine that, rather than characterizing it and getting off topic? 

But a few paragraphs down, Mister E states this:

First of all, you can’t define your terms to the conditions that are present on Earth. Intelligent life could thrive in atmospheres comprised of krypton gas for all we know.

Mister E’s statements by his own definition are quite superstitious. Do we have proof that intelligent life can survive in an atmosphere comprised of krypton gas? No. It’s an unproven hypothesis without any evidence to support it.

To site, the ability of lower lifeforms to survive on Earth makes a great and unproven leap. We have laws of science, and the more we unwrap this thing we call Earth, we understand how difficult this whole life business is. 

It’s not a matter of, "What if they breathed cyanide?" It’s the fact that they’d have to an atmosphere that would allow the entry of the small spectrum of light on the electromagnetic spectrum that is useful for life. 

When we start saying, "Maybe, there’s some planet where people breathe Helium and drink sulfur, and the plants breathe out Gadelinium." We’ve really crossed the line from science to Science Fiction. When you have hardcore proof of it, let me know, otherwise, it’s just plain silly. 

Finally, if Mister E wants to insist that all life=intelligent life, he may make his argument that an amoeba is intelligent life. Regardless, let’s move on:

Even if that number were true, that would still mean that there could be 1,000,000,000,000,000 planets that do "fulfill all the things Earth does."

Well, a little less than that. Assuming there are an average of 10 planets per solar system on average, that would put a trillion planets in our galaxy. Extrapolating that throughout the Universe that would mean you’d have one "M Class" planent every 1,000 galaxies or those 100,000,000 worlds if you assumed those odds held true through the whole universe. (Which is a very difficult assumption to make.)

I don’t care if we’re trying to decide whether or not we’ll ever meet these people, I’m just talking about their existence.

But you have no evidence that they exist.  And you just stated that believing something without evidence is superstition. You appeal to the vastness of the Universe, but on our own planet there are vast stretches of land the size of large states (Think of the great deserts.) with no intelligent life at all. You have no proof. It seems to me the belief in aliens out of such necessity comes from an attempt to substitute God:

Finding intelligent life on other worlds would completely expose the lie that is Christ’s magical resurrection. And I can understand how someone would be terribly frightened to find that out, hence the intense desire to believe that we are truly alone in the universe. 

I think Mister E overstates the case. Certainly, some people would require a change in theology, but the non-existence of aliens is not a core tenet of the Christian faith. The Bible really talks alittle about the universe beyond our planet, so the discovery of intelligent life in general wouldn’t have disprove the resurrection of Christ. The two events are unrelated. The discovery of intelligent might as well prove that Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy. In neither case are the facts of the case effected. 

Does the discovery of intelligent life eliminate religion? Many authors don’t think so. For example, Christian and Jewish clergy were portrayed in Babylon 5, including a Gospel Choir singing on the station. One Star Trek novelist wrote a book that included a nun.

These creatures would not have crucifixes anywhere on their planet, would have never heard of Jesus, and would laugh at us for having so many people blindly believe in some mystic beliefs in such a "modern" era.

And you assume any aliens found would side with you. Talk about arrogance! 

The effect on Christianity would depend on what exactly we found. For the sake of argument, if we found ET life, here’s what the effect would be on Christianity depending on what it turns out to be:

1) Unfallen World

If through man’s sin, the fall came. If on another planet, the inhabitants didn’t sin and were in perfect relationship with God, they wouldn’t need salvation. But we’re not going to run into these sorts. 

No Impact on Christianity.

2) "Christian" World

Already discussed.

3) Earthlike World

If we discovered a planet very much similar to our own, I think it would actually strengthen the case of Christians as well as Intelligent design advocates. If we find things like Double Helix DNA, Messenger RNA, all the systems we have, similar composed, trees, shrubs, etc. 

If an Earthlike world were found, the claim would go forth that the imprint of the master artist who has left his signature in both places. That’s where Star Trek: TNG ended up when it made the Chase which had all the Star Trek races having their source in a creator, an advanced alien race that planted life because there was none. Somehow, we always end up with someone having to start this whole thing no matter what perspective we come from.

Regardless, I would expect it more likely that missionaries would go out than the church would suffer major losses.

4) Totally Unearthlike World

This would probably be the most challenging, but not insurmountable In addition, it’’s near impossible that Intelligent life could exist without the Earth’s atmosphere. If for some reason it did, some people would lose faith while others would simply declare God could do what he wanted, how He wanted.

However, given that life faces harsh odds anywhere,and the odds are against anything closer than 1000 galaxies away, it certainly doesn’t keep me up at night.

whereIstand Tags

• adamelijah
• MisterE
• Is there intelligent life on other planets?
• Are religious beliefs vital to society?
• Should schools teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

Well, folks, I did it. After more than a year + of making fun of MySpace, I actually created my own MySpace page. I’ve been a member for about a year and a half (for some reason) but have not commented hardly at all and certainly not gotten into the silly ceremony of friending. 

Why did I make the decision? I applied my own logic regarding technology. Technology be it Blogging, MySpace, etc. is not evil in itself, it’s what people do with it. Many people are using this MySpace thing to help promote themselves and their beliefs. Staying away and leaving the opportunity to others is kind of silly.

Of course, I’ll admit that I don’t know quite what I’m doing right now, but I’ll figure it out. I always do.

whereIstand Tags

• Do you regularly read blogs using an RSS reader?

In his post, Mister E continues his support for the concept that it is far more likely that somewhere in the universe there is an intelligent lifeform that breathes Nitrogen and lives in 300 degree heat than that God exists:

It is clear to me now that to the religious conservative, the idea of God requires less imagination than a man who breaths nitrogen. This is utterly absurd. First of all, we already have life forms on Earth that do that, secondly, our atmosphere is primarily oxygen, if it were nitrogen, I’m sure that is what we’d be breathing.

Really? The Earth’s Atmosphere is primarily oxygen? Mister E, that’s news to me. According to Wikipedia:

Earth’s atmosphere is a gay layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth and retained by the Earth’s gravity. It contains roughly 78% nitrogen, (normally inert except upon electrolysis by lightning[1] and in certain biochemical processes of nitrogen fixation), 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition to about 3% water vapor. This mixture of gases is commonly known as air. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation and reducing temperature extremes between day and night.

The problem isn’t that more Nitrogen is needed. The problem is that on Earth, animal life breathes out Carbon Dioxide and breathes in Oxygen. Thus, what Nitrogenman would require would be that plants produce Nitrogen while Nitrogenman breathes Nitrogen and breathes out a material that the plant needs. In addition, this would be in the planet’s atmosphere to the degree that Carbon is in our own. 

Keep in mind that a truly advanced society is going to require understanding of the stars for navigation and to be capable of space exploration, so they must be able to see, not to mention live. Our atmosphere allows the right part of the electromagnetic spectrum to get through to our planet:

Jay Richards

“In other words, there’s really just a very narrow part of the electromagnetic spectrum that’s going to be useful for living processes like photosynthesis. It’s not as if life could have evolved to use gamma radiation or x-ray radiation or something like that. There’s really just a narrow part of the spectrum that would be useful to life processes. 

Well, as it turns out, that’s also the same narrow part of the spectrum that is the most informative about the various structures we discover in the universe around us.”

Narrator:
THESE SPECIFIC FREQUENCIES (THAT ENABLE PLANTS TO MANUFACTURE FOOD AND ASTRONOMERS TO OBSERVE THE COSMOS), REPRESENT LESS THAN 1 TRILLIONTH OF A TRILLIONTH OF THE UNIVERSE’S RANGE OF NATURAL ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS.

FORTUNATELY, IT IS THE TYPE OF LIGHT OUR SUN PRODUCES IN ABUNDANCE…AND THAT MOST EASILY PENETRATES THE FILTERING SHIELD OF OUR ATMOSPHERE TO REACH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH.

The argument that there’s some other atmosphere that would work with nitrogen just as well as ours requires far more proof. 1 trillionth of a trillionth is an incredibly tiny amount.

Just because we haven’t found them is in no way a valid reasoning for assuming they don’t exist, especially considering the number of planets in the universe.

So you renounce your Atheism? It seems odd to state positively that there is no God, while proposing a scenario for the existence of aliens on a Nitrogen based world that as far as I can tell is nearly impossible.

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, being that doesn’t exist in this physical realm (otherwise we’d see him), he doesn’t adhere to any natures of science or physics, he is logically impossible, and, according to the Christian bible, contradicts himself often…

Forgot omnipresent, which is important. As for your statement, we can understand in an elementary way by looking at our computer. Let us suppose for one moment that it were possible for computer programs to debate and that one insisted the computer had no designer and no owner and that it was far more probable that there was another computer made of wood down the hall than that this person who sat at a desk typed and made everything happened.

Such is the situation we’re in. If you believe there is no possibility of something beyond the computer, than it may be logical to conclude there is nothing outside of computers. If you believe there is nothing supernatural, then it is logical to conclude there is nothing outside the Earth. The question is that conclusion logical? 

There is much we can’t understand, much we can’t explain, like why a religion that was founded in a Misogynistic era, relied on the testimony of women as the primary witnesses of the resurrection, and whose founder was executed as a criminal became the world’s largest and has spread from one corner of the globe to another. 

But the idea that there are life forms on this planet that do survive extreme conditions outweighs any argument for the contrary. So… no cigar on that one.

No one’s arguing there aren’t lifeforms that survive extreme conditions. The issue is intelligence and advanced lifeforms. 

So, Adam is a fan of Star Trek, but condemns EVERYTHING that Star Trek represents: freedom, love, peace, acceptance… I don’t get that. Well, thats social conservative contradiction for ya.

Actually the original Star Trek described itself as a "Gunsmoke" in space. Star Trek (particularly the older less-PC versions) were fun rides through space with high speed chases that saw a lot of fun explosions. Yes, galactic peace is nice, but the plot of Star Trek is no more plausible than the plot of Lord of the Rings. 

The stories are valuable for fun and adventure in unusual places, and occassionally for what they say about our world.’

Saying an empty universe wastes space assumes some intelligence behind it.

Nope. Thats actually not true. Sorry. All it means is that the likelihood of us being the ONLY life in the universe is pretty gosh darn slim. Its incredibly selfish to assume that we are, and is a testament to the self centered nature of conservative religion. But it is good to know that finding intelligent life on other planets would damage Adam’s faith. It shows me more of the nature of this interesting phenomenon of blindly believing in some fascinating mystical tales. I know this because of how defensive he gets about the idea of other intelligent beings being out there, because I think deep down he knows that if we were to make contact with some communicating life force out there, it would be highly unlikely that they would have ever heard of Jesus.

The odds of a planet fulfilling all the things Earth does is 1 in  1,000,000,000,000,000. Those are pretty narrow odds. The idea of the existence of aliens didn’t threaten my faith before I began to study the odds of their existence and what it requires for life in the Universe. Again, the focus is not on Life, but intelligent life. If the question were whether there was some nitrogent-muching microbe on some distant world, I’d have a different answer, but let’s focus the question. 

But certainly, why would finding bacteria on Mars not? After all, if evolution is bullshit and God created everything, then God created bacteria, and put it on this planet… right? So if we found bacteria on other planets, would it not seem strange that that was all there was on that planet? After all, isn’t the point of plants and bacteria to entertain god’s most important creature: humans? Why would he bother sprinkling them across the universe?

Suppose, he were plotting against you. As the omnipresent creator of the Universe, he planned thousands of years in advance to bring the hammer down by planting bacteria on other planets. When bacteria is brought back from dozens of planets that are estimated to be the same age as Earth, this really throws the whole theory of evolution into crisis, at least as far as an origin for the Universe, because it shows that Natual Selection is not on enough. If Mars has bacteria than shouldn’t Natural selection work just like on Earth? If as E argues we can have any type of atmosphere have life, hearty bacteria should be able to survive enough time to evolve into real-life Martians. 

Also, it should be noted that God didn’t create everything for our entertainment, but rather scripture says:

The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever; the LORD shall rejoice in His works.-Psalms 104:31

Though, even if one were to assume that he did make it all for us, he knew we would find it, now wouldn’t he? 

whereIstand Tags

• MisterE
• Is there intelligent life on other planets?
• Are religious beliefs vital to society?
• Should schools teach Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

As many conservatives seem ready to buy into Mitt Romney’s stock, they better ask the people who Mitt embraced in his last election: Massachusetts’ Social Liberal activists:

As an abortion-rights advocate, Deborah Allen did not think she would find much in common with Mitt Romney. Then she heard his pitch.

If elected Massachusetts governor, Romney said in an endorsement meeting, he would "preserve and protect" legal abortion. The judges he picked would probably do the same. And then he said something so unexpected that Allen began to see Romney, a Republican whom she had considered an uncertain ally, as sincere in his search for common ground. 

"You need someone like me in Washington," he said, according to Allen and two other abortion-rights activists, whose group was deciding whether to endorse Romney in the 2002 race for governor. Though running for state office, Romney hinted at national ambitions and said he would soften the GOP’s position on abortion. The Republians’ hard-line stance, he said, was "killing them."

Today, Romney is running for president and promising to pull the Republican Party in the opposite direction, returning it to the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan. He has renounced his support for abortion rights and has shifted his language on gay rights, campaign finance and other issues, bringing him more in step with Republican voters. He mocks Massachusetts, the state he led until January, as "sort of San Francisco East, Nancy Pelosi-style."

Though Romney’s policy shifts have become widely known, his meetings with activists for abortion rights and other causes — which have received far less attention — show he put much work into winning support from Massachusetts’ liberal establishment only a few years ago.

Making personal appeals on the state’s liberal touchstones — gay rights, abortion rights and the environment — Romney developed a persuasive style, convincing audiences that his passion matched theirs and that he was committed to their causes.

He impressed environmentalists by using rhetoric sharper than theirs. He met gay-rights activists on their turf, in a restaurant attached to a popular gay bar, and told skeptics he would be a "good voice" and a moderating force within his party.

And in many cases, he said his commitment had been cemented by watching the suffering of someone dear to him: a grandchild whose asthma left him worried about air pollution; his wife’s multiple sclerosis, which had him placing hope in embryonic stem cell research; the death of a distant relative in an illegal abortion, convincing him that the procedure needed to remain legal.

It’s pretty easy to see that Romney snowed liberal activists in Massachusetts to gain their support. Ann Coulter at CPAC said of Mitt Romney:

"…And you have to say about Romney, he tricked liberals into voting for him." (laughter) I like a guy who hoodwinks liberals so easily. "

Never does she nor most of the conservatives flocking to Romney consider that Romney could just as easily "con" them as he did libreals in MA. Romney may be the most audacious conman in the history of America. In 2002, he tried to convince social liberals he was one of them, and in 2007, he’s trying to do the same thing with social conservatives. Trusting a man of no integrity in hopes he won’t doublecross you is absurd and foolish.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

whereIstand Tags

• AnnCoulter
• MittRomney
• What impact will the early start to the 2008 presidential race have on the democratic process?

I grew up in a home headed by  a sci-fi geek, my dad. My dad claimed his interest in science fiction was because of the technology. He figured that new technology would make into sci-fi movies before it would make it into Civilian use. I’ve seen the vast majority of Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes. It was practically a family tradition while DS9 and TNG were on the air together, my dad, my brother and I would be in the living room from 5-7, watching the exploits of Captain Picard and Commander (later Captain Sisco.)

We watched the Star Wars movies (i’ve seen all but the last and from all accounts, I didn’t miss much), Contact, Farscape, Enemy Minds, cheesy old Sci-fi shows like Lost in Space. You get the idea. If it was sci-fi and not a total blood bath, sexfest, or bad beyond awful, we saw it. 

I remember one movie that we watched when I was a dumb kid about alien abductions. I slept with one eye open for about a month, fearing that should I go to sleep, I’d be kidnapped by extra-terrestials.

As a writer, I’ve used aliens quite a bit. A short story to be released next month in an anthology, "Light at the Edge of Darkness" features a stereotypical sci-fi geek in a humorous alien abduction story. A novel I’m working on features an Alien symbiot that provides a man with an amazing litany of superpowers. 

While they might pose a theological prolem at one point, that’s a, "I’ll cross that bridge" when we come to it issue. The way I was brought up, it didn’t have a problem.  My dad always quoted Isaiah 40:15, "Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust."

My dad took the plural of nations to suggest there was more than just the nations. (After all if they were a drop in the bucket, what was the bucket full of.) 

We may never know, but at this point in my life, I’ve come to be a skeptic of extra-terrestial life in our galaxy, the more I’ve come to realize how rare what we’ve got on Earth is.

In Star Trek, the Galaxy is divided into 4 quandrants. Our quadrant is called, "The Alpha Quandrant." and there’s also the "Beta Quadrant" which is a main focus of the Star Trek shows up to Voyager.  In the Alpha Quadrant, you have Earth, and you find countless different species that are a little different. The Federation of Planets is a huge conglomoration made up of hundreds of different Alpha Quadrant worlds. The Vulcans, Klingons, Cardassians, Ferengi, Romulans, and a slew of minor species all have M-Class words.  And then, there opens a wormhole and we find hundreds of more worlds in the Gamma Quandrant. Finally, Katherine Janeway and the Crew of Voyager spend 7 years running into even more species in the Delta Quandrant. 

Gene Roddenberry’s universe is teaming with ETs everywhere you look. It is as fantastic as it is improbable.

Guillermo Gonzalez explains this quite well in Privileged Planet:

KEVIN GRAZIER
“A lot of things went right on Earth to have yielded complex life. Absolutely.” 

BIJAN NEMATI
“The number of factors that have been postulated has grown. Currently the typical number you’ll see in a typical list would have something like 20.” 

Guillermo Gonzalez
“We find that we need to be in the right location in the galaxy…that we’re inside the Circumstellar Habitable Zone of a star…that we’re in a planetary system with giant planets that can shield the other planets from too many comet impacts…that we’re orbiting the right kind of star that’s not too cool or not too hot… that we’re on a planet that has a moon that can stabilize the tilt of its axis…that we’re on a planet that’s a terrestrial planet…a planet that has a crust that’s just thick enough to maintain plate tectonic activity…that has enough heat in its interior that its still circulating its liquid iron core so it can generate a magnetic field…that has an atmosphere that has enough oxygen to allow for complex organisms to survive…that has enough water and enough continents that allow for the diversity of life and an active biodiversity that you need to support complex creatures such as ourselves…” 

“All these factors have to be met at one place and time in the galaxy if you’re going to have a planet as habitable as the Earth, which you need for complex and even technological life.”

Donald Brownlee, author of Rare Earth concurred:

“There’s a general feeling that nature wants to make earth-like planets and that, naturally, life will evolve on them…and, naturally, evolve into something like us, and yet… 

“…the conditions, the environmental conditions on a planet that would allow more complex creatures similar to people or plants and animals is very rare.” 

“…and so, we wrote the book, Rare Earth, to point out that the Earth is, actually, a rather special place…"

When they try and figure out the odds, they come up with a probability of finding life on another planet at 1/1000 of a trillion. 

Certainly, no situtaion like Star Wars or Star Trek could reasonably be said to exist in the Universe. Whether there’s intelligent alien life on some other planet in the Universe, who is to say? Only God knows. But I doubt very much with given odds that there’s intelligent life on other planets in our galaxy. 

Of course, this doesn’t mean you won’t ever see an alien in my story. They still make fun plot elements, whether they’re real or not, and most reasonable folks place sci-fi and fantasy on the same level. So, you can include them without necessarily believing you’re going to actually see one coming near Earth anytime soon.

whereIstand Tags

• Is there intelligent life on other planets?