• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP


  • Total voters
    67
Oh.
You don't think I've answered the question.
No question about it -- you have not.
You have made allusions, but you haven't in any way demonstrared how your allusions are meaningful, relevant, or necessarily denote an inconsistency.

But, as I said -- its your claim, and it is up to you to support it.
If you choose not to, then it remains meaningless.

So, when you can demonstrate your claim of inconsistency within the bible, you let us know.
 
Last edited:
You, who are claiming that the answer is an answer whether or not the enquirer understands it, are bitching that the answers I'm providing you aren't actually answers because you're too ignorant to understand the answer.
And THIS is nothing but a predictable, weak-kneed, pre-pubescent attempt to avoid having to directly suppport your assertion. If you were a tenth as bright as you like to think you are, you'd avoid this childish nonsense and simply support your claim.

That you will not do so says all that needs to be said.
 
picture.php


;)
 
I ain't gonna bother explaining that the presence of brook trout in mountain streams is refutation of Noah's Myth.

I expect you people to use those wrinkled things inside your skulls. If you're not willing to use them, just take it on faith that you can't take the bible on faith.

Question: What would a large infusion of fresh water caused by torrential, unending rain do to the salinity of the oceans? As you add fresh water to a saline solution, the salinity of the overall solution decreases. Is there a point where both fresh and salt water creatures could survive in water of the same salinity?

If so, what amount of fresh water would need to be dumped on teh earth to achieve this?

If not, would a worldwide flood kill the freshwater or saltwater species?
 
If God made life on other planets why not tell us?
 
If God made life on other planets why not tell us?

Some people might argue that there is some information that could be seen as support for alien life found in the bible. I think Jerry has made that point before.
 
If God made life on other planets why not tell us?

Well one might argue that at the point in time when the Bible was composed, there was no reason in burdening the People of Earth with this knowledge.
 
If God made life on other planets why not tell us?
Your question pre-supposes that a person can explain the motivations of God, and implies that an inability to provide said explanation has some relevance to the subject.

So:
Beats me.
So what?
 
No question about it -- you have not.
You have made allusions, but you haven't in any way demonstrared how your allusions are meaningful, relevant, or necessarily denote an inconsistency.

No.

I said the existence of trout in mountain streams disproves the Deluge Theory.

As you yourself said, you don't have to understand the answer.
 
And THIS is nothing but a predictable, weak-kneed, pre-pubescent attempt to avoid having to directly suppport your assertion.

No. You stated that the fact that an answer exists is sufficient and that comprehension of the answer is irrelevant.

Now you're getting all pissy because you don't understand an answer, a perfectly valid answer, to your question.


That you will not do so says all that needs to be said.

Yes, your inconsistency is noted.

Just admit that an answer isn't an answer unless it makes sense, and I'll explain the answer for you.

Be a man, you can do it, I know it.
 
Okay so...

God made man in his image, right? What if we encounter alien life that doesn't look like us at all, but is way more intelligent and advanced than us? That would logically make them more advanced than God. How would the Bible explain that away?

I agree that the Bible is an inconsistent document to begin with, so we cannot rely on it to answer such large questions. Still, it's an interesting debate to consider though.
 
No. You stated that the fact that an answer exists is sufficient and that comprehension of the answer is irrelevant.

Now you're getting all pissy because you don't understand an answer, a perfectly valid answer, to your question.
What you deliberately fail to reconize, in a typically infantile attept to cover your lack of sound argument, is that the issue here is not my failure to understand, but of you to show that your statement is true.

You made a statement. Show that statement to be true.
 
God made man in his image, right? What if we encounter alien life that doesn't look like us at all, but is way more intelligent and advanced than us?
Beats me. What?

That would logically make them more advanced than God.
This is only the case if "in his image" means "as advanced as".
That's a patently silly supposition.
 
Okay so...

God made man in his image, right? What if we encounter alien life that doesn't look like us at all, but is way more intelligent and advanced than us? That would logically make them more advanced than God. How would the Bible explain that away?

I agree that the Bible is an inconsistent document to begin with, so we cannot rely on it to answer such large questions. Still, it's an interesting debate to consider though.

The explanation for that has always been that the Magic Sky Pixie made man in Her spiritual image, not physical.
 
I don't see that discovering life on other planets would change anything about what the Bible teaches. If anything, it might make it a little easier to understand in scientific terms.

My grandfather was a Baptist minister for some 50 years, and he was fascinated by the prospect of extraterrestrial life. I suggested it may be possible that we are the ones who were transplanted from another planet far more advanced than our own, and he agreed that could be a possibility. If that were the case, artificial insemination would certainly explain how a virgin became pregnant as we've been able to do that for many years. If space travel were possible over 2,000 years ago, I'm sure those who were capable of that could have had the technology to bring the dead back to life.

The Bible says Jesus will return on a cloud, but who's to say he won't be riding on a spaceship when that happens? Then comes the next question, who created the aliens? It will all still come back to a basic belief in God... or not.
 
What you deliberately fail to reconize, in a typically infantile attept to cover your lack of sound argument, is that the issue here is not my failure to understand, but of you to show that your statement is true.

You made a statement. Show that statement to be true.

Hey, you made the rule, buddy, quit your whining, your ignorance isn't my problem:

What necessitates that something had to?
For that matter, if there is an answer, what necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?

There is an answer.

The trout in the mountain stream disproves the Flood.

You don't understand why?

Tough. I'm not explaining because YOUR rule says I'm not required to.

Rescind your rule if you seek enlightenment, grasshopper.
 
Hey, you made the rule, buddy, quit your whining, your ignorance isn't my problem:
:roll:

Its clear that you know you cannot support your argument, so you're going to do everthing you can to avoid having to explain how your statement diproves the Bible.

The trout in the mountain stream disproves the Flood.
Explain how this is true.
 
:roll:

Its clear that you know you cannot support your argument, so you're going to do everthing you can to avoid having to explain how your statement diproves the Bible.

What's evident is that you made a rule without bothering to think of what it meant.

What's also evident is that you're too stubborn to admit error.

Explain how this is true.

I'm laughing my ass off, over here.
 
I'm laughing my ass off, over here.
Laugh all you want -- you still havent supported your claim, and as such your claim remains meaningless. If thats how you want to leave things, I really do not care.

Now, why not stop what I mostly assume is a rather excellent impression of a 4-year old, and show that your statement is true.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom