Debate here if you deny Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[jusplay4fun]

Nothing NEW is here; just another USELESS and Worthless video and a Llama Shrug.

NOT worth loading and watching a VIDEO.....**Shrug** Llama.

Do you actually want to debate, discuss, or participate in this chat? or merely lob your shrugs and HOPE that constitutes actual discussion? I have already told your PAL pack rat that posting a video is NOT discussion; he had yet to Learn that Lesson. Are you going to play that game, too? and try to look intelligent like the resident pathetic and SELF-Loathing pack rat?

I think of llamas, even joyless ones, as more intelligent than the lowly pathetic puny rat. IDK, maybe NOT... SHRUG.

[Lionz]

Did anyone notice that most of my images disappeared after being posted?

Apatheist and jusplay4fun, do you two know what universal common descent means if you are speaking as if the first life on earth would not be mankind’s ancestor? And no, I don’t think the flood is just a lie or that the Palestrina Mosaic was just an attempt to portray fantasy creatures. How much sense would that make if all of these guys really existed? Neither of you have a guess on what the ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΙC or crocodile leopard was other than fantasy? Jusplay4fun, how about check this out in detail if you are focused on flood evidence in the Black Sea: http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/flood.html. Apatheist, don’t just take any similarity in biology as proof of common ancestry if it makes sense that a common designer would use similar features on different creatures from the jump.














https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_mosaic_of_Palestrina

[jusplay4fun]

Your images prove NOTHING, Lionz.

I do KNOW basic Science and basic Biology. What is your point?

you said:

Apatheist and jusplay4fun, do you two know what universal common descent means if you are speaking as if the first life on earth would not be mankind’s ancestor?

Of course. What is your point?

by jusplay4fun » Sat Mar 07, 2026 8:05 am

Lionz wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 5:48 pm
Haven’t you been led to believe that humans have ancestors who were alive 3.4 billion years ago and that have been reproducing ever since?

I propose that speciation happens very quickly and that there are many species around now who have evolved into being what they are since the flood.

When you, Lionz, speak of
humans have ancestors who were alive 3.4 billion years ago
are you speaking of other humanoids? Perhaps NOT. I agree with Apatheist that this sounds to me that you are referring to LIFE and not to merely DIRECT human ancestors such as hominoids.And most scientists accepted the idea that LIFE evolved from simple to more complex life forms over billions of years. The fossil evidence largely supports this idea.

NOTE I added a clarifying comment in RED above and enlarged other key parts of my previous response. I think you missed some of these key points that I already posted, Lionz.

[Apatheist]

Apatheist, don’t just take any similarity in biology as proof of common ancestry if it makes sense that a common designer would use similar features on different creatures from the jump.

What doesn't make sense to me is that there is a common "designer", so your fundamental premise is wrong. If we were designed by a being that could create everything from the quantum level to the universe, why have we got so many basic flaws? Why do people - including the most ardent believers - have to suffer with so many horrible diseases if we were the result of "intelligent" design? If there is a designer, they don't appear to have been very good.

Evolution works by making small incremental changes, and the ones that prove successful dominate the next generation - hence the longer beaks on finches that Darwin found on different islands.
Similarity in biology is the absolute proof of evolution. There is no reason for a blue whale to have fingers with knuckles as far as the operation of its fins are concerned.

Stop trying to deflect with the 3.4 billion years issue. As I said, the premise in the article you quoted was about the number of humans and it not being able to stretch back beyond 7000 years. That was clearly talking about humans, not life of any sort. We're all descended from the first amoeba - some of us, apparently, further than others

A "crocodile leopard" could just be a crocodile with mud spots or a leopard with a skin disease that someone happened to come across. No-one knows. A giraffe, in French, is a "camel leopard"; that's just an interpretation of what the first people to see it thought it might be. Bear in mind that anything ancient came from a time when they believed in witches, demons, dragons, sorcery and whatever; it may even be that this was the escaped pet of an ancient visiting alien. I'm not a biologist, so I'm in no position to speculate on what it might have been. That doesn't mean that it's what you or anyone else wants to believe though. Did you look at the medieval attempts to draw horses, cats and lions? If not, please do, and realise that one cannot take these images at face value.

EDIT: It took me one search on Google AI to come up with the Nile monitor lizard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_monitor

May we move on now and forget about old pictures?

[jusplay4fun]

To make things simple, I think there is good evidence to suggest an Intelligent Design and thus an Intelligent Designer.

From a different perspective, the Universe is FINED-tuned to accomnodate life on our Planet and depends on MANY PHYSICAL constants to make it so.

Let's start HERE:

AI Summary

To understand why our universe is fine-tuned for life based on physics, consider these key points:

Fundamental Forces: The strength of gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces are precisely balanced to allow for stable structures.
Cosmological Constant: A specific value of dark energy density enables the universe to expand at a rate conducive to life.
Element Formation: The conditions in stars allow for the creation of essential elements like carbon and oxygen, crucial for life.
Planetary Conditions: The right distance from stars (habitable zone) ensures temperatures that can support liquid water.
Physical Constants: Constants like the speed of light and Planck's constant are finely tuned to allow complex chemistry.
Initial Conditions: The universe's initial conditions, such as density and temperature, were set to enable galaxy and star formation.

I read some articles that hinted at this idea, then read this book:

Believing Is Seeing: A Physicist Explains How Science Shattered His Atheism and Revealed the Necessity of Faith
Is your worldview enlightened enough to accommodate both science and God at the same time?

Dr. Michael Guillen, a best-selling author, Emmy award–winning journalist and former physics instructor at Harvard, used to be an Atheist―until science changed his mind. Once of the opinion that people of faith are weak, small-minded folks who just don’t understand science, Dr. Guillen ultimately concluded that not only does science itself depend on faith, but faith is actually the mightiest power in the universe.

In Believing Is Seeing, Dr. Guillen recounts the fascinating story of his journey from Atheism to Christianity, citing the latest discoveries in neuroscience, physics, astronomy, and mathematics to pull back the curtain on the mystery of faith as no one ever has.

https://www.amazon.com/Believing-Seeing ... 1496455584

https://michaelguillen.com/believing_is_seeing/

I am now reading other books related to these ideas. They are NOT easy READS and I am slowly getting through them.

I considered reading a book by Martin Rees, but have not yet gotten to it:

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.

Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe Paperback – May 3, 2001
by Martin Rees (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers ... 0465036732


and LOOK HERE:
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-could-h ... e-as-it-is

and MORE:

The fine-tuned universe is the hypothesis that, because "life as we know it" could not exist if the constants of nature—such as the electron charge or the gravitational constant—had been even slightly different, the universe must be tuned specifically for life.[1][2][3][4] In practice, this hypothesis is formulated in terms of dimensionless physical constants.[5]

History
In 1913, chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore fine tuning in the universe. Henderson discusses the importance of water and the environment to living things, pointing out that life as it exists on Earth depends entirely on Earth's very specific environmental conditions, especially the prevalence and properties of water.[6]

In 1961, physicist Robert H. Dicke argued that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist in the universe.[7][8]

and (same source):

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[1][19]

N, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[19] If it were large enough, they would repel them so violently that larger atoms would never be generated.
Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[20] If ε were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the Big Bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[17][19]
Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial cosmic expansion rate, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. If gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[19][21]
Lambda (Λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, Λ is on the order of 10−122.[22] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. A slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[19][23]
Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[19]
D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 spatial dimensions.[19] Rees argues this does not preclude the existence of ten-dimensional strings.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[Apatheist]

@jp4fun - sorry, but none of that indicates that it's by design. All you've shown is that things settle down into an equilibrium of necessity, which is what we experience; if the forces didn't balance out, then galaxies, stars, planets and we wouldn't exist, and no-one would ever know. I think you're mentally swapping the cause and the effect - what you presented is the only way in which particles can evolve to continue to exist, and those that didn't don't exist any more (much like animals - those that evolved to die before reproducing, or weren't able to heal or live with wounds, simply wouldn't continue to exist).
There's also the question of who that designer might be - Zeus, Jupiter, Ganesh, Ra... and all of those who were worshipped before Christianity came along.
The argument is pretty simple - did they exist? Any argument that says they didn't exist before we "knew better" could equally well be applied to any current beliefs.
At the end of the day, I've no idea how or why we came into existence, and as you may infer from my username, I'm not going to waste time worrying about it or trying to work it out. My single belief is that we will not find out before we die, if at all; and I cannot bring myself to worship any "designer" that would create people that have had to go through what humans have to endure, especially the torment of cancer. Saying "it's just to test us" is a pretty lazy and naïve cop-out because it undermines the actual religious argument.

Incidentally, @Hitred and co: using the bible as a reference is also not evidence. Historical theologians (or theological historians) agree that the content was agreed upon in around 320 BC; that would be like asking you in this day and age to write about the life, thoughts and sayings of Queen Anne, based purely on what you've heard, without any reference to documentation, of which there is considerably more verified stuff about her than Jesus. You might get as far as something about legs, lesbian (maybe) and uniting Britain and Ireland, but even if you asked people in the UK, you wouldn't get a lot more unless they'd seen the recent film.

[jusplay4fun]

@jp4fun - sorry, but none of that indicates that it's by design. All you've shown is that things settle down into an equilibrium of necessity, which is what we experience; if the forces didn't balance out, then galaxies, stars, planets and we wouldn't exist, and no-one would ever know. I think you're mentally swapping the cause and the effect - what you presented is the only way in which particles can evolve to continue to exist, and those that didn't don't exist any more (much like animals - those that evolved to die before reproducing, or weren't able to heal or live with wounds, simply wouldn't continue to exist).
There's also the question of who that designer might be - Zeus, Jupiter, Ganesh, Ra... and all of those who were worshipped before Christianity came along.
The argument is pretty simple - did they exist? Any argument that says they didn't exist before we "knew better" could equally well be applied to any current beliefs.
At the end of the day, I've no idea how or why we came into existence, and as you may infer from my username, I'm not going to waste time worrying about it or trying to work it out. My single belief is that we will not find out before we die, if at all; and I cannot bring myself to worship any "designer" that would create people that have had to go through what humans have to endure, especially the torment of cancer. Saying "it's just to test us" is a pretty lazy and naïve cop-out because it undermines the actual religious argument.

Incidentally, @Hitred and co: using the bible as a reference is also not evidence. Historical theologians (or theological historians) agree that the content was agreed upon in around 320 BC; that would be like asking you in this day and age to write about the life, thoughts and sayings of Queen Anne, based purely on what you've heard, without any reference to documentation, of which there is considerably more verified stuff about her than Jesus. You might get as far as something about legs, lesbian (maybe) and uniting Britain and Ireland, but even if you asked people in the UK, you wouldn't get a lot more unless they'd seen the recent film.

Apatheist: You do you. But we can have a good discussion here and prompt each other to at least THINK and discuss some important issues and matters.

MAIN POINT here:
That is why it is called FAITH. I determined when I was much younger that I was not going to be able to "PROVE" religious values and beliefs with my intellect, that I need to rely on FAITH, the heart, and NOT the brain. I am glad I did not waste my time going down that intellectual "rabbit hole." (btw: that is where Michael Guillen went, as discussed in his book I referenced and read. He is much smarter than me, but I arrived at the same conclusion much sooner and a much younger age than he.)

I look at all the Science, the Math, the beauty of Nature and the wonders of this world and Science and LIFE and I SEE EVIDENCE of the Creator, of God. What you see and believe and interpret is YOU.

I see the Hand of God in Life and in this world. I read an piece YEARS ago about how well our Life adapts to the properties of water (its unique density, its ability to dissolve many things, its melting and freezing points/Temperatures, and more). The writer suggested that this could be a mere coincidence and due to simple RANDOMNESS. I see that Hand of God.

[Apatheist]

@jp4fun - sorry, but none of that indicates that it's by design. All you've shown is that things settle down into an equilibrium of necessity, which is what we experience; if the forces didn't balance out, then galaxies, stars, planets and we wouldn't exist, and no-one would ever know. I think you're mentally swapping the cause and the effect - what you presented is the only way in which particles can evolve to continue to exist, and those that didn't don't exist any more (much like animals - those that evolved to die before reproducing, or weren't able to heal or live with wounds, simply wouldn't continue to exist).
There's also the question of who that designer might be - Zeus, Jupiter, Ganesh, Ra... and all of those who were worshipped before Christianity came along.
The argument is pretty simple - did they exist? Any argument that says they didn't exist before we "knew better" could equally well be applied to any current beliefs.
At the end of the day, I've no idea how or why we came into existence, and as you may infer from my username, I'm not going to waste time worrying about it or trying to work it out. My single belief is that we will not find out before we die, if at all; and I cannot bring myself to worship any "designer" that would create people that have had to go through what humans have to endure, especially the torment of cancer. Saying "it's just to test us" is a pretty lazy and naïve cop-out because it undermines the actual religious argument.

Incidentally, @Hitred and co: using the bible as a reference is also not evidence. Historical theologians (or theological historians) agree that the content was agreed upon in around 320 BC; that would be like asking you in this day and age to write about the life, thoughts and sayings of Queen Anne, based purely on what you've heard, without any reference to documentation, of which there is considerably more verified stuff about her than Jesus. You might get as far as something about legs, lesbian (maybe) and uniting Britain and Ireland, but even if you asked people in the UK, you wouldn't get a lot more unless they'd seen the recent film.

Apatheist: You do you. But we can have a good discussion here and prompt each other to at least THINK and discuss some important issues and matters.

MAIN POINT here:
That is why it is called FAITH. I determined when I was much younger that I was not going to be able to "PROVE" religious values and beliefs with my intellect, that I need to rely on FAITH, the heart, and NOT the brain. I am glad I did not waste my time going down that intellectual "rabbit hole." (btw: that is where Michael Guillen went, as discussed in his book I referenced and read. He is much smarter than me, but I arrived at the same conclusion much sooner and a much younger age than he.)

I look at all the Science, the Math, the beauty of Nature and the wonders of this world and Science and LIFE and I SEE EVIDENCE of the Creator, of God. What you see and believe and interpret is YOU.

I see the Hand of God in Life and in this world. I read an piece YEARS ago about how well our Life adapts to the properties of water (its unique density, its ability to dissolve many things, its melting and freezing points/Temperatures, and more). The writer suggested that this could be a mere coincidence and due to simple RANDOMNESS. I see that Hand of God.

I agree with and welcome your approach - distinctly preferable just to insulting people who disagree

I look at it this way: I don't feel the need to know. For example, you don't know all of the following: who invented numbers, plastic, the touch screen, wireless telephony, written English, the first app; who had the first opposable thumb, fingers with knuckles, eyes that could distinguish colour, ears that could register sounds, and memories of other creatures. Yet here we are, everyday, using smart phones to communicate with people in a variety of ways, without worrying about all those details. That's how I approach the world - I've no idea where it's from or why, but it doesn't matter, so I'm not going to fill in a gap by finding - or creating - a being to ascribe all the unknown parts to. As I've explained elsewhere, I've yet to come across a religion that explains things to my satisfaction, and the fact that they've been wrong in the past means that I wouldn't rely on anything they say now.

As for the water argument - again, I would say that if it were not that way, life would not exist here. There are plenty of planets where life doesn't exist (as far as we can tell) - that's why this is called the Goldilocks zone. We have evolved because we're suited to a water-based environment, and based on carbon; it's possible there's a planet which is predominantly sand and given rise to a silicone-based lifeform. It wouldn't be as stable or adaptable because silicone can't make as many compounds as carbon, but it could still exist.

I have one fundamental question for you: do you believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it?
If so, what will it do to your belief system if life is discovered on another planet?
If not, did/will Jesus visit those planets too, and would it be in the same white guy/beard/flowing robes garb, even if they're small furry blue creatures with 50 arms each who invented the underarm deodorant before the wheel? Would he end up being crucified again to save them from their sins?

[jusplay4fun]

Apatheist,

I think ALL this rests basically on ONE ISSUE:

1) Do you believe that this world is created or Happened by chance ? by Luck?

2) Or is there a Grand intelligent Design?

3) And if there is an Intelligent Design, thus is there an ultimate Grand Intelligent Designer?

I think we agree that NONE of this can be "PROVEN." And thus, for me, it comes down to a matter of FAITH. (And Michael Guillen argues that even Atheists have a set of "Beliefs" even if they do not REALIZE they do or express it quite that. Going further, some argue that Atheistic Science is the or A NEW Religion.)

As far as finding a Religion to meet ALL or most of your view, I am rather sure that you WILL NOT. The ONLY way THAT will happen is to START your own. And THAT I do NOT Recommend. You can take bits from here and there and "cobble together" your own set of beliefs and live your Life according to that. It seems that taking that eclectic approach, you and Lionz have both done so, Apatheist.

And YES, I did get the irony or sarcasm in your screen name. I have not figured it ALL out, but I saw the combination of Apathy and Atheist there. Carry on..!

Let me look at this question you posed:

I have one fundamental question for you: do you believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it?
If so, what will it do to your belief system if life is discovered on another planet?

If not, did/will Jesus visit those planets too, and would it be in the same white guy/beard/flowing robes garb, even if they're small furry blue creatures with 50 arms each who invented the underarm deodorant before the wheel? Would he end up being crucified again to save them from their sins?

I do not really KNOW. I see arguments can be made for both SOLO and other life (ET) outside Earth.

a) A silicon based life form is much less likely to be diverse.
b) Carbon can bond with 4 other atoms AND form long Chains and those chains can branch.
c) The biggest impact, imo, is the long DNA molecule, not possible without Carbon.

To understand the chemical formula for typical DNA molecules, consider the following points:

DNA is composed of nucleotides, each containing a sugar, phosphate group, and nitrogenous base.
The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose, which has the formula C5H10O4.
The phosphate group contributes PO4, which is part of the backbone structure.
The nitrogenous bases include adenine (C5H5N5), thymine (C5H6N2O2), cytosine (C4H5N3O), and guanine (C5H5N5O).
The overall empirical formula for DNA can be approximated as CxHyNzOw, where x, y, z, and w vary based on the specific sequence of nucleotides.

That is the Chemistry, in a nutshell. Now for some Physics: The Drake Equation. On the cursory level, THE ODDS say there HAS to be extra-terrestial (ET) life outside Earth.

This may be of interest to you:
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/exopl ... -equation/

And we have had little "Proof" or evidence of ETs. And, despite the ODDS that there MIGHT be life as such, there are other and newer arguments mades as we learn about exo-Planets and find more, seemingly nearly each day:

The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Fermi paradox

Main article: Fermi paradox
A civilization lasting for tens of millions of years could be able to spread throughout the galaxy, even at the slow speeds foreseeable with present-day technology. However, no confirmed signs of civilizations or intelligent life elsewhere have been found, either in this Galaxy or in the observable universe of 2 trillion galaxies.[91][92] According to this line of thinking, the tendency to fill (or at least explore) all available territory seems to be a universal trait of living things, so the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited, but no evidence of this exists. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?".[93][94]

A large number of explanations have been proposed to explain this lack of contact; a book published in 2015 elaborated on 75 different explanations.[95] In terms of the Drake Equation, the explanations can be divided into three classes:
Few intelligent civilizations ever arise. This is an argument that at least one of the first few terms, R∗ · fp · ne · fl · fi, has a low value. The most common suspect is fi, but explanations such as the rare Earth hypothesis argue that ne is the small term.
Intelligent civilizations exist, but we see no evidence, meaning fc is small. Typical arguments include that civilizations are too far apart, it is too expensive to spread throughout the galaxy, civilizations broadcast signals for only a brief period of time, communication is dangerous, and many others.
The lifetime of intelligent, communicative civilizations is short, meaning the value of L is small. Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form, and he further speculated that the lack of evidence of such civilizations may be because technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly. Typical explanations include it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others, they tend to be destroyed by natural events, and others.
These lines of reasoning lead to the Great Filter hypothesis,[96] which states that since there are no observed extraterrestrial civilizations despite the vast number of stars, at least one step in the process must be acting as a filter to reduce the final value. According to this view, either it is very difficult for intelligent life to arise, or the lifetime of technologically advanced civilizations, or the period of time they reveal their existence must be relatively short.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Until other intellgent ET life is found, the relevant question(s) about Christ becomes MOOT, right??

Last point for now: I recall reading a sci fi story on the point about Christ: Did he DIE only once for EVERYONE or was his Death repeated on each Planet. I cannot recall the name of the short story or its author.

[Apatheist]

Apatheist,

I think ALL this rests basically on ONE ISSUE:

1) Do you believe that this world is created or Happened by chance ? by Luck?

2) Or is there a Grand intelligent Design?

3) And if there is an Intelligent Design, thus is there an ultimate Grand Intelligent Designer?

I think we agree that NONE of this can be "PROVEN." And thus, for me, it comes down to a matter of FAITH. (And Michael Guillen argues that even Atheists have a set of "Beliefs" even if they do not REALIZE they do or express it quite that. Going further, some argue that Atheistic Science is the or A NEW Religion.)

As far as finding a Religion to meet ALL or most of your view, I am rather sure that you WILL NOT. The ONLY way THAT will happen is to START your own. And THAT I do NOT Recommend. You can take bits from here and there and "cobble together" your own set of beliefs and live your Life according to that. It seems that taking that eclectic approach, you and Lionz have both done so, Apatheist.

And YES, I did get the irony or sarcasm in your screen name. I have not figured it ALL out, but I saw the combination of Apathy and Atheist there. Carry on..!

My answer to that is to quote the Catherine Tate character, Lauren: "Am I bovvered?". I'll wait until I get an answer, but it may not be in this lifetime.

You didn't answer my question though: do you believe that there is life on other planets elsewhere in the universe?

[jusplay4fun]

I added to my original post. Please check it again.

After posting, I realized that I did not, so I reflected on that and simply added my answer to your question to my original post in response.

Let me put that HERE:

Let me look at this question you posed:

I have one fundamental question for you: do you believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it?
If so, what will it do to your belief system if life is discovered on another planet?

If not, did/will Jesus visit those planets too, and would it be in the same white guy/beard/flowing robes garb, even if they're small furry blue creatures with 50 arms each who invented the underarm deodorant before the wheel? Would he end up being crucified again to save them from their sins?

I do not really KNOW. I see arguments can be made for both SOLO and other life (ET) outside Earth.

a) A silicon based life form is much less likely to be diverse.
b) Carbon can bond with 4 other atoms AND form long Chains and those chains can branch.
c) The biggest impact, imo, is the long DNA molecule, not possible without Carbon.

To understand the chemical formula for typical DNA molecules, consider the following points:

DNA is composed of nucleotides, each containing a sugar, phosphate group, and nitrogenous base.
The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose, which has the formula C5H10O4.
The phosphate group contributes PO4, which is part of the backbone structure.
The nitrogenous bases include adenine (C5H5N5), thymine (C5H6N2O2), cytosine (C4H5N3O), and guanine (C5H5N5O).
The overall empirical formula for DNA can be approximated as CxHyNzOw, where x, y, z, and w vary based on the specific sequence of nucleotides.

That is the Chemistry, in a nutshell. Now for some Physics: The Drake Equation. On the cursory level, THE ODDS say there HAS to be extra-terrestial (ET) life outside Earth.

This may be of interest to you:
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/exopl ... -equation/

And we have had little "Proof" or evidence of ETs. And, despite the ODDS that there MIGHT be life as such, there are other and newer arguments mades as we learn about exo-Planets and find more, seemingly nearly each day:

The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Fermi paradox

Main article: Fermi paradox
A civilization lasting for tens of millions of years could be able to spread throughout the galaxy, even at the slow speeds foreseeable with present-day technology. However, no confirmed signs of civilizations or intelligent life elsewhere have been found, either in this Galaxy or in the observable universe of 2 trillion galaxies.[91][92] According to this line of thinking, the tendency to fill (or at least explore) all available territory seems to be a universal trait of living things, so the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited, but no evidence of this exists. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?".[93][94]

A large number of explanations have been proposed to explain this lack of contact; a book published in 2015 elaborated on 75 different explanations.[95] In terms of the Drake Equation, the explanations can be divided into three classes:
Few intelligent civilizations ever arise. This is an argument that at least one of the first few terms, R∗ · fp · ne · fl · fi, has a low value. The most common suspect is fi, but explanations such as the rare Earth hypothesis argue that ne is the small term.
Intelligent civilizations exist, but we see no evidence, meaning fc is small. Typical arguments include that civilizations are too far apart, it is too expensive to spread throughout the galaxy, civilizations broadcast signals for only a brief period of time, communication is dangerous, and many others.
The lifetime of intelligent, communicative civilizations is short, meaning the value of L is small. Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form, and he further speculated that the lack of evidence of such civilizations may be because technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly. Typical explanations include it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others, they tend to be destroyed by natural events, and others.
These lines of reasoning lead to the Great Filter hypothesis,[96] which states that since there are no observed extraterrestrial civilizations despite the vast number of stars, at least one step in the process must be acting as a filter to reduce the final value. According to this view, either it is very difficult for intelligent life to arise, or the lifetime of technologically advanced civilizations, or the period of time they reveal their existence must be relatively short.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Until other intellgent ET life is found, the relevant question(s) about Christ becomes MOOT, right??

Last point for now: I recall reading a sci fi story on the point about Christ: Did he DIE only once for EVERYONE or was his Death repeated on each Planet. I cannot recall the name of the short story or its author.

[Apatheist]

I do understand the science, the Fermi paradox and the Drake equation. There's a BBC astronomy show called The Sky At Night, which has been running since 1957 - I've been on it twice. I did physics at university.
I also have a former colleague who went to work for SETI, and I've looked at some of her team's research. They did discover a planet with some unusual chemistry in the atmosphere, but drew no conclusions about its origin.

What I was really asking was what your faith tells you about life elsewhere. Obviously you don't know, no-one does, yet. Hypothetically, though - even if the points are currently moot - how would you accommodate this within your belief system? Does it allow for it or preclude it?
I'm just curious as to how someone (possibly not you) would react if, having believed all their life that we were the only chosen planet, having had it drummed into them (perhaps on pain of punishment) were informed that it was not the case. I'm sure the conspiracy theorists would claim it was fake. Religions already have had to adjust their beliefs about everything revolving around the Earth, then about the discovery of other galaxies.
It seems like you're waiting to cross that bridge when we come to it (and perhaps hoping that we don't).

Anyone with a different religion have any views on this, either way?

[jonesthecurl]

If you crucified someone with 50 arms, you'd need a lot of nails.

[Dukasaur]

I think ALL this rests basically on ONE ISSUE:

1) Do you believe that this world is created or Happened by chance ? by Luck?

2) Or is there a Grand intelligent Design?

3) And if there is an Intelligent Design, thus is there an ultimate Grand Intelligent Designer?

I think we agree that NONE of this can be "PROVEN."

"PROVEN" is a very debatable term. Okay, maybe we can grant that this can't be proven beyond all doubt, but the better our observations, the more certain it becomes that there is no grand design, intelligent or otherwise.

Look at the orbits of the planets. At first glance, they look like circles. But improve the quality of your observations, and you find out they are not really circles, but ellipses. Now improve the quality of your observations a little more, and you realize they're not really perfect ellipses, more like ugly squashed boiled egg things. But improve the quality of your observation a little more again, and you find out they are sine waves wrapped around hypothetical ugly squashed boiled egg things. But look a little closer again, and you find they're not really true sine waves wrapped around hypothetical ugly squashed boiled egg things, but ugly random jagged lines vaguely approximating sine waves wrapped around hypothetical ugly squashed boiled egg things.

Every time you think you see some kind of rational, regular organization, it turns out it was just the crudeness of your observations. Refine your methods, look a little closer, and you will find the organization that you imagined isn't really there. It was just wishful thinking. Always, once you look a little closer, you find the universe is just a chaotic jumbled mess. Things that looked like circles aren't really circular; things that looked like spirals aren't really helical, things that looked like triangles or straight lines turn out to actually be jagged assemblages of random objects. Entropy increases.

The one great truth you can find in Judeo-Christian traditions is in Ecclesiastes. "All is vanity and vexation of the spirit." Everything else is a pile of horseshit.

There have been lots of brilliant minds who were immersed in both science and religion -- Pythagoras, Newton, Kepler, to name the greatest examples -- and all eventually went mad from trying to reconcile these completely incompatible ideas. Every attempt to find a Grand Design ends in madness and death.

[mookiemcgee]

If you crucified someone with 50 arms, you'd need a lot of nails.

would be pretty easy to convince me this guy was created by an omnipotent organized power tho, as far as I know the current record is two arms and a really big dick.

Spoiler

Yes I'm aware some babies are born with a 3rd actual arm but not aware of any instance that the arm was larger than Barry Woods peepee

[Lionz]

@jusplay4fun

Apatheist had a problem with a quote that suggested humans should have populated more if they have ancestors who have been reproducing for 3.4 billion years and when humans theoretically became hominoid was beside the point maybe.

@Apatheist

See Genesis if it suggests that death and even things like thorns and thistles came to be as a result of rebellion and corruption that proceeded from it. Don’t doubt I’m quite familiar with the concept of natural selection. I guess I see evolution happening even faster than you do even if I see things more like C and you see things more like B here:



I’m not sure what you think are whale knuckles in some sense that supports universal common descent but do you honestly believe that wolf or deer like mammals went back into the water and had babies after breastfeeding on land as land dwelling mammal if that’s what mainstream academia proposes?

See what I said above when it comes to how long humans have been reproducing according to mainstream academia. You had a problem with a quote that suggested humans should have populated more if they have ancestors who have been reproducing for 3.4 billion years and when humans theoretically became hominoid was beside the point maybe.

I guess you have a descent point with the Nile monitor lizard to be fair and it makes sense if they descend from what is portrayed on the mosaic, but what stops there if A) The Travels of Marco Polo suggests that there were people hunting dragons over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago and if B) Marco Polo claimed a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades and if C) dragons are mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium and if D) a 16th century work called the Aberdeen Bestiary refers to dragons as if they existed and could kill elephants and if E) there's a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there and if F) Aristotle, Herodotus, Josephus, Philae, Ammianus, Cicero, Aelianus, Mela, Solinus, Ammianus, Matthew of Edessa, 4'th century Coptic monks, and Esarhaddon's inscription all reference or attest the existence of flying serpents or reptiles? Just see what Merriam Webster itself says dragon means if you don’t think they really existed. What was a dinosaur called before 1852 if that’s when the word was coined? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon

[Lionz]

@Apathest and jusplay4fun,

As far as if aliens exist or not, consider what Haim Eshed announced in 2020 concerning a group called the galactic federation and what POTUS said on Joe Rogan in 2024 if he mentioned he had been told many things about what he deemed the people coming from space. Don’t be too quick to believe that fallen angels are primate evolving space aliens or biblical Elohim though if ancient prophecy strongly points to an end time deception involving fallen angels becoming more public on earth (like in the days of Noah if you are familiar with Genesis 6:4 and 1 Enoch and the concept of nephilim?). See what I posted here if I posted this around a decade ago and it seems more credible on a regular basis:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bible/comments ... ngelalien/

https://www.jpost.com/omg/former-israel ... ady-651405

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weird-news ... s-n1250333

Paste: A retired brigadier general in Israeli Military Intelligence, Eshed was director of space programs for Israel Ministry of Defense for nearly 30 years, is former chair of the Space Committee of the National Council for Research and Development for the Ministry of Science, Technology and Space and a member of the steering committee of Israel Space Agency.[8][9] Eshed is responsible for the launch of 20 Israeli made satellites,[10] and he is widely cited as the father of Israel's space program.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Eshed

[riskllama]

I think ALL this rests basically on ONE ISSUE:

1) Do you believe that this world is created or Happened by chance ? by Luck?

2) Or is there a Grand intelligent Design?

3) And if there is an Intelligent Design, thus is there an ultimate Grand Intelligent Designer?

I think we agree that NONE of this can be "PROVEN."

"PROVEN" is a very debatable term. Okay, maybe we can grant that this can't be proven beyond all doubt, but the better our observations, the more certain it becomes that there is no grand design, intelligent or otherwise.

Look at the orbits of the planets. At first glance, they look like circles. But improve the quality of your observations, and you find out they are not really circles, but ellipses. Now improve the quality of your observations a little more, and you realize they're not really perfect ellipses, more like ugly squashed boiled egg things. But improve the quality of your observation a little more again, and you find out they are sine waves wrapped around hypothetical ugly squashed boiled egg things. But look a little closer again, and you find they're not really true sine waves wrapped around hypothetical ugly squashed boiled egg things, but ugly random jagged lines vaguely approximating sine waves wrapped around hypothetical ugly squashed boiled egg things.

Every time you think you see some kind of rational, regular organization, it turns out it was just the crudeness of your observations. Refine your methods, look a little closer, and you will find the organization that you imagined isn't really there. It was just wishful thinking. Always, once you look a little closer, you find the universe is just a chaotic jumbled mess. Things that looked like circles aren't really circular; things that looked like spirals aren't really helical, things that looked like triangles or straight lines turn out to actually be jagged assemblages of random objects. Entropy increases.

The one great truth you can find in Judeo-Christian traditions is in Ecclesiastes. "All is vanity and vexation of the spirit." Everything else is a pile of horseshit.

There have been lots of brilliant minds who were immersed in both science and religion -- Pythagoras, Newton, Kepler, to name the greatest examples -- and all eventually went mad from trying to reconcile these completely incompatible ideas. Every attempt to find a Grand Design ends in madness and death.

sounds like duk's finally discovered Rick & Morty...

[jusplay4fun]

Let's focus on what Duk said above.

Every time you think you see some kind of rational, regular organization, it turns out it was just the crudeness of your observations. Refine your methods, look a little closer, and you will find the organization that you imagined isn't really there. It was just wishful thinking. Always, once you look a little closer, you find the universe is just a chaotic jumbled mess. Things that looked like circles aren't really circular; things that looked like spirals aren't really helical, things that looked like triangles or straight lines turn out to actually be jagged assemblages of random objects. Entropy increases.

1) Assuming the world is KNOWABLE; we now KNOW there are finite limits to what we can know. That limit, coming to us from that Crazy World of Quantum Mechanics, is called the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. Then there is also Schroedinger's Cat, too.

And yes, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, overall Entropy increases with each energy interaction.


AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To understand why entropy increases with each energy interaction, consider the following points:

Entropy measures the disorder or randomness in a system.
Energy interactions often lead to the dispersal of energy, increasing disorder.
Systems naturally evolve towards states of higher probability, which are more disordered.
Heat transfer between systems typically results in a more uniform energy distribution.
Irreversible processes, like mixing or chemical reactions, contribute to increased entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease.

It is a bit unclear what entropy has to do with Duk's scenario, except to say that the DEEPER we go into KNOWING something, the MORE ENTROPY there is?? I have studied and taught Thermodynamics, so your point Duk is rather unclear.

Duk also said:

Every time you think you see some kind of rational, regular organization, it turns out it was just the crudeness of your observations. Refine your methods, look a little closer, and you will find the organization that you imagined isn't really there. It was just wishful thinking. Always, once you look a little closer, you find the universe is just a chaotic jumbled mess.

There is some Truth to what Duk said here, BUT the wish for rational thinking and organization does not mean that the ultimate reality will end in a" a chaotic jumbled mess." Take as an example, the Standard Model; at one time, there were so many NEW particles being discovered when atoms collide into one another: muons, pions, neutrinos, tau neutrinos, and mu neutrinos to name a few. After lots of confusion, the Standard Model was devised to explain MUCH of this and I have THE High Honor to say that this model seems to get it RIGHT, based on our Current Technology, and the later we are here, the MORE complex all this GOES.

REGARDING improving Technology: I was very recently finishing a lesson to my students to measure motion, as Galileo did some 400 years ago. We measured time with Stopwatches. To prove that the relationship between distance and speed, we had to get better data and thus we found a way to measure time not by TENTHS of the Second Inning of the game. I upped the ability to measure time down to 0.05 seconds, giving us DATA to show a clear relationship as QUADRATIC, using a comparison of Linear vs. Quadratic Relationship, looking a graph of the data, looking at relevant mathematical equation, AND seeing that the Data suggests a parabola** as the graph of that relationship.

** for me, the parabola for the curve of the data is the MOST cogent evidence for this quadratic relationship.

[Apatheist]

@Lionz: presenting anything from the bible, or any artistic representation, as evidence, is in my view inadmissible. It is at best suggestive, at worst entirely imaginary. Just search "What were dragons based on" for some answers as to why people imagined dragons. They're even mentioned in the bible scrolls that were left out of the final edited version, according to QI. Large snakes, monitor lizards and dinosaur bones feature prominently, and who knows what other species that simply aren't around any more.
I don't entirely rule out that we were visited by ET in the past. If you like biblical evidence, read the book of Ezekiel - with a modern eye, I find it impossible to imagine anything other than a jet-powered helicopter is being described by someone with no scientific knowledge, although as I've said elsewhere, one can't trust the translation. There's also plenty of imagery from all over the world that could be interpreted as people in space suits and shuttle craft with modern equipment and even a laptop; equally, there's early film of someone walking along holding what could appear to be a smart phone, but in fact it's a hearing aid. We have no idea whether the ancient carvings were representations of what they really saw, or just the imaginings of the Arthur C Clarke, HG Wells and Gene Roddenberry of their day.

I really would like to focus on one issue though: does your indoctrination faith tell you that there can, or cannot, be life on other planets?

[riskllama]

[Dukasaur]

It is a bit unclear what entropy has to do with Duk's scenario, except to say that the DEEPER we go into KNOWING something, the MORE ENTROPY there is??

Yes, that is true.

But my main point was, no matter how much a chaotic mess the universe is today, you can count on it to be even worse tomorrow. If there was any kind of "Intelligent Design", things would gradually be getting better organized, not worse. We would live in a universe of decreasing entropy, not increasing.

[Apatheist]

It is a bit unclear what entropy has to do with Duk's scenario, except to say that the DEEPER we go into KNOWING something, the MORE ENTROPY there is??

Yes, that is true.

But my main point was, no matter how much a chaotic mess the universe is today, you can count on it to be even worse tomorrow. If there was any kind of "Intelligent Design", things would gradually be getting better organized, not worse. We would live in a universe of decreasing entropy, not increasing.

Is that true, though? After all, when we look at the universe, we're seeing it as it was thousands or millions of years ago, so it's possible that "now" (by which I mean time since the big bang) it could have become more organised in terms of cosmic dust being turned into stars and planets.
Of course the stars running out of gas and explode and it starts to coalesce again, but I don't know if it's possible to say where we're actually at. It also depends on whether the universe continues to expand or starts to collapse back in the big crunch - in which case, entropy might go the other way.

I suppose if there were an intelligent designer, would they perhaps get bored if the whole place were organised and stable, and therefore stir it up a bit?

[jusplay4fun]

It is a bit unclear what entropy has to do with Duk's scenario, except to say that the DEEPER we go into KNOWING something, the MORE ENTROPY there is??

Yes, that is true.

But my main point was, no matter how much a chaotic mess the universe is today, you can count on it to be even worse tomorrow. If there was any kind of "Intelligent Design", things would gradually be getting better organized, not worse. We would live in a universe of decreasing entropy, not increasing.

Despite the Second Law of Thermodynamics, about increasing Entropy, there are "pockets" (or isolated systems) where Entropy is NOT increasing. And, as I see things, living organisms are generally "such pockets" that work to, basically OPPOSE, at least while ALIVE, those tendencies. Of course, once the organism is DEAD, entropy reigns SUPREME. BUT if a species continues, then that "pocket" expands and that pocket is an "exception to the law of increading entropy (i.e., the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

AI Summary (to two separate questions):

Entropy can decrease locally, but the total entropy of the universe always increases.

and

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To understand if living organisms work against the second law of thermodynamics, consider the following points:

The second law states that entropy in a closed system tends to increase over time.

Living organisms are open systems that exchange energy and matter with their environment.

They maintain low entropy internally by utilizing energy from their surroundings (e.g., food, sunlight).

This energy input allows organisms to create order and complexity, countering local entropy.

However, the overall entropy of the universe still increases due to energy transformations and waste production.

Thus, while organisms can decrease entropy locally, they do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

@Apatheist:

I have read recently that the likelihood of the Big Crunch is NOW much less, based on recent discoveries and theories of Cosmology, expecially about the INFLATION of the known Universe.

AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To understand the current stance on the Big Crunch theory among physicists, consider the following points:

The Big Crunch suggests the universe could eventually collapse back into a singularity.
Current observations indicate the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Dark energy is a significant factor in this accelerated expansion, making a Big Crunch less likely.
Many physicists now favor scenarios like the Big Freeze or Heat Death over the Big Crunch.
The Big Crunch remains a topic of theoretical interest but lacks strong empirical support.
Ongoing research in cosmology continues to explore various end-of-universe scenarios.

[Dukasaur]

It is a bit unclear what entropy has to do with Duk's scenario, except to say that the DEEPER we go into KNOWING something, the MORE ENTROPY there is??

Yes, that is true.

But my main point was, no matter how much a chaotic mess the universe is today, you can count on it to be even worse tomorrow. If there was any kind of "Intelligent Design", things would gradually be getting better organized, not worse. We would live in a universe of decreasing entropy, not increasing.

Is that true, though? After all, when we look at the universe, we're seeing it as it was thousands or millions of years ago, so it's possible that "now" (by which I mean time since the big bang) it could have become more organised in terms of cosmic dust being turned into stars and planets.

I suppose it's "possible", in the sense that any hypothetical situation is "possible"

In fact, every observation we make suggests that there are fewer and fewer stars and planets all the time. Yes, new ones form constantly, but old ones die at a faster rate than new ones are born. And any scenario backed up by actual observations sees the universe getting dimmer and colder and more chaotic. But sure, it's "possible" that some magic is happening that we haven't been able to observe, and that in the far-off reaches of the universe there's a galactic renaissance going on.

I suppose if there were an intelligent designer, would they perhaps get bored if the whole place were organised and stable, and therefore stir it up a bit?

So many possible objections to that. For starters, why would a perfect being get bored? If something was perfect, no other state can be better.

But as a stronger objection, "stirring the pot" just for fun would be okay if he was just playing with inanimate objects. But there are living things suffering and dying in this pot. So, if your alleged god is doing this, he's unspeakably evil and cruel.

It is a bit unclear what entropy has to do with Duk's scenario, except to say that the DEEPER we go into KNOWING something, the MORE ENTROPY there is??

Yes, that is true.

But my main point was, no matter how much a chaotic mess the universe is today, you can count on it to be even worse tomorrow. If there was any kind of "Intelligent Design", things would gradually be getting better organized, not worse. We would live in a universe of decreasing entropy, not increasing.

Despite the Second Law of Thermodynamics, about increasing Entropy, there are "pockets" (or isolated systems) where Entropy is NOT increasing. And, as I see things, living organisms are generally "such pockets" that work to, basically OPPOSE, at least while ALIVE, those tendencies. Of course, once the organism is DEAD, entropy reigns SUPREME. BUT if a species continues, then that "pocket" expands and that pocket is an "exception to the law of increading entropy (i.e., the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Sure, living things are small pockets where, for a little while, entropy is kept at bay. For a little while, until death and rot restores.