adamelijah’s whereIstand Blog

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?

In the early scenes of the movie "Amazing Grace," social reformer and abolitionist William Wilberforce stops a man from beating his horse to death. Wilberforce had a great affinity for animals of all sort and didn’t appreciate cruelty towards them. 

While, I’ve never owned many animals, senseless cruelty to them bothered me. Certainly, some animals are killed for meat, and an animal is not superior to a man. But still, merely doing harm for its own sake is a great evil. 

 I remember my gut-turning at the Columbus Zoo when kids jumped up against the glass and violated zoo rules by scaring Gorillas charging into the class. In Idaho, a State Rep. introduced a bill to take dog fighting from a misdemeanor to a felony and I would be supportive of the measure if there were actual proof that Dog-fighting was going on to any degree that a new law would make a difference. This story out of Germany is amazing in it’s absurdity and cruelty:

Tiny, fluffy and adorable, Knut the baby polar bear became an animal superstar after he was abandoned by his mother.

He rapidly became the symbol of Berlin Zoo, whose staff bottle-fed him and handed out cuddles in between.

At three months old, however, the playful 19lb bundle of fur is at the centre of an impassioned debate over whether he should live or die.

Animal rights activists argue that he should be given a lethal injection rather than brought up suffering the humiliation of being treated as a domestic pet. 

When Knut was born in December, his mother ignored him and his brother, who died. Zoo officials intervened, choosing to raise the cub themselves.

But Albrecht and other activists fret that it is inappropriate for a predator, known for its fierceness and ability to fend for itself in the wild, to be snuggled, bottle-fed and made into a commodity by zookeepers.

They argue that current treatment of the cub is inhumane and could cause him future difficulties interacting with fellow polar bears. "They cannot domesticate a wild animal," added Ruediger Schmiedel, head of the Foundation for Bears.

A tad absurd, isn’t it? If you’re dead, you can’t very well interact with other polar bears. In addition, according to zoo staff, there’s another problem by these clueless animal rights supporters:

But Berlin Zoo holds different opinions. Its chief vet Andre Schuele says the activists’ criticisms would make him angry if he could take them seriously. "Polar bears live alone in the wild. I see no logical reason why this bear should be killed."

Schuele also argued that given the increased rarity of wild polar bears, it makes sense to keep them alive in captivity so that they can be bred. "Polar bears are under threat of extinction, and if we feed the bear with a bottle, it has a good chance of growing up and perhaps becoming attractive as a stud for other zoos," he said.

But though it might save the species, it would be "unnatural." 

Dan Riehl said it best:

The animals in this story aren’t the polar bears. It’s the nut jobs who think to prove you care for the animal, you have to put it to death.

What so bothers these animal rights activists that a cute bear has to be executed for its own good? I’d consider several things as key:

1) Nature First, Life Second

Many "animal rights" folks and enviromentalists don’t love the environment and nature, as much as they hate man’s interferrance in it. When I left Montana, the state’s land was on fire again. Clinton Administration policies directly escalated the number of wildfires in Montana. My last time in Glacier before leaving, I couldn’t go past the tourist center, the some was so thick. 

It was thanks to policies like, "Let it burn," which discouraged fire suppression efforts and led to larger and large fire. The Clinton Interior Department insured loggers couldn’t go in and log high risk areas resulting in thousands of acress of trees becoming nothing more than fuel for out of control fires. A special hatred seemed reserved for loggers. Environmentalists even opposed them going into burned out areas and removing trees. One said on the local news, "I’d rather see it rot."

Forest fires are incredibly natural and so are the deaths of hundreds and even thousands of animals, but if its natural, it must be good.

2) Life Is Only Worth Living If It’s Optimal

Knut is better off dead because he is not going to have the optimal polar bear life:

A woman in Spain comments on how absurd this is:

I could understand putting the animal down if it was destined to be released into the wild (obviously being raised by humans it could never fend for itself in the wild) but as it never was and never will be could somebody please explain to me why on earth put it down. I thought that all animals that live in a zoo are dependent on humans for their welfare and if the only reason to put knut down is because he is dependent on humans then surely the same applies to all animals that live in a zoo.

Of course she’s correct. The argument against Knut is reminiscent of a pro-choice canard that there are children that are better off dead than raised in circumstances that are far from ideal. If a human should be killed, than doing it to a polar bear is small beans in comparison. After all, wasn’t it the mother polar bear’s right to choose?

Regarldess, this absurd attempt to destroy a polar bear for no good reason is over according to the zoo. The idealogical struggle that spawned it on the other hand is har from at an end.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

whereIstand Tags

• Is life fundamentally precious?

In his latest despeare bid to get in the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose is claiming to have bet on the Reds every day:

He (Rose) said he bet on the Reds "every night" to win while he was the team’s manager. Rose also said that was consistent with the Dowd Report’s findings.

Well, what does John Dowd, the man who wrote the report have to say?

Not so, Dowd said: "I never heard (until now) that he bet every night on the Reds…"

"When (Mario) Soto and (Bill) Gullickson pitched, he didn’t bet on the Reds," Dowd said when reached at his Washington, D.C., office. "We only put in the report what we could find and corroborate three different ways." 

Now, Manny Soto wasn’t a man I’d bet on. Soto went 20-27 from 1985-87 with the Reds. Gullickson went 25-23 with the ’86-’87 Reds with a very high ERA. Betting on Tom Browning on the other hand made sense. Still Rose wants into the Hall. Even if we could somehow believe his story, Dowd makes the case that it doesn’t matter:

Dowd said he thinks that Rose’s most recent admission will paint him as a sympathetic character with fans, and build a groundswell of support to lift the ban.

"OK, he’s now admitted he violated the capital crime of baseball every single day. Now he’s saying, ‘I violated Rule 21 every day.’ And baseball is now supposed to let him back into the game?" Dowd said.

Exactly, no man played more baseball games than Pete Rose and none had more opportunity to consider that when Baseball said that being caught gambling would mean a lifetime suspension, it might mean something.

Hat Tip: Ben Maller

whereIstand Tags

• Should Pete Rose be allowed in the Hall of Fame?

Terp in response to my post in which I asked response to some questions, rather fires back with an accusation:

What you want is a theocracy. You want to be ruled by a religious dictatorship that intervenes in the lives of all citizens

Wow, apparently Terp knows me better than I know myself because I don’t advocate for that. As is usual, the English language is beaten like a hated stepchild here on WhereIStand. The word thoecracy means:

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

Not only don’t the vast majority of Americans want a theocracy, but I’d posit that it’s impossible to get a theocracy in America. Understand, that Christianity is not under one head (other than Christ) in this country, and the religious conservative movement often included Orthodox Jews who are not even Christians.

How do you get a theocracy from that? You don’t. While this group called Religious Conservatives agree on many issues, they could not manage a theocracy. Let’s go through some issues.

Birth Control:

Traditional Catholics and a smattering of Protestants (maybe some Orthodox Jews) have a problem with it, everyone else has no problem with it inside of marriage.

Smoking:

Most Evangelicals and Mormons have a serious problem with smoking. (Most wouldn’t go with it to the point of banning it.)  Catholics, conservative mainline Calvinists, Orthodox Jews, and other groups have no problem.

Drinking:

Again, many Evangelicals and Mormons stand against the whole of the rest of the group.

Gambling:

Most Catholics tend not to have a problem, the Mormon Church is officially against it, though I’ve known some people including former Missionaries who’ve gone to the Jackpot Casino. Many Evangelicals have a problem with it, but not all.

We could go on, but you get the point. A government by theocracy is impossible because on many different issues, members of the large religious conservative coalition differ from one another. 

Issues such as abortion, opposition to homosexual marriage, and the belief in allowing public displays of religious significance cross denominational lines and bring people together in spite of their differences on other issues.

You may find it wrong for religious people to form coalitions. You may find the involvement of any religious person in politics to be a danger to the safety of the Republic, but please don’t give me blather about a theocracy. It’s simple and pure nonsense.

whereIstand Tags

• Terp
• Are religious beliefs vital to society?
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?