• 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
Most likely the black sea flooded, got written into the Epic of Gilgamesh, which followed the trade routes, got written into the Enuma Elish, traveled further down the trade routes and ended up in the oral traditions of the Israelites who then wrote it into the Torah. Other flood myths are likely because places in the world flood, simple fact of living on this planet. That doesn't equate to a single global flood ever happening.

I have yet to see even a half baked argument to support a global flood based on actual scientific evidence.

We were in agreement. Except I was over here, and you were like two steps to the side of me.

We seem to argue the same side of arguments, you and I.
 
What I was saying is that it might have APPEARED to be a worldwide flood to people because what they saw get flooded, was the only world they knew. Do you think they had any idea what was farther than their borders in ancient times?? Most of these stories pre-date continent spanning (or even region spanning) peoples.


SO let's say some backwater tribe in Asia gets flooded out. They percieve that the World, actually the known world to them, gets flooded. And then add to that translation issues, which apparently aren't possible because of the Universal Grammar theory that paris brought up...cause...ya know how ancient languages were about as different as Italian and Spanish...


and wtf...Clams? really? CLAMS?! Don't bring the clams into this because you KNOW what picture I'm going to post...

EDIT: Too late.

gooey_duck1.jpg

That's not a clam that's a Geoduck :)
 
That's not a Geoduck, it's a Panopea Abrupta, a species of very large saltwater clam


Science'd.

They are the same thing...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoduck]Geoduck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

:doh
 
Wow.

We're smart.

I say tomatoes, he say tomatoes.
 
Wow.

We're smart.

I say tomatoes, he say tomatoes.

You know you're addicted to World of Warcraft when anytime someone uses the word "wow" you think they're about to make a reference to the game ;) :lol:
 
You know you're addicted to World of Warcraft when anytime someone uses the word "wow" you think they're about to make a reference to the game ;) :lol:

You search the forum for "wow" don't you.

I know how to get the great Jerry to response to my posts now.
 
You search the forum for "wow" don't you.

I know how to get the great Jerry to response to my posts now.

Don't you force me to bust out some uber macro code on your n00b ass!!
 
Substitute an electron for the cat.

Same principle.

Observing the decaying isotope will cause the probability wave to break. The state of the cat (electron) is an unknown until this juncture.
Yes. But "unknown" does not necessitate "both".
 
The purpose of the Bible is to present the existance of God and Jesus (in my opinion).
Life on other planets has absolutely nothing to do with this.
 
Substitute an electron for the cat.

Same principle.

Observing the decaying isotope will cause the probability wave to break. The state of the cat (electron) is an unknown until this juncture.

We can only make statements about what we know.

Until a measurement or observation is made, we can not say anything about the cat.
 
We can only make statements about what we know.
Until a measurement or observation is made, we can not say anything about the cat.
The issue I have is the idea that because you don't know if the cat is dead or alive, the cat -is- both dead and alive.
 
The issue I have is the idea that because you don't know if the cat is dead or alive, the cat -is- both dead and alive.

I'm with you.

I understand the concept on probability the principal is establishing, I just think it misrepresents itself.

Until probability is 100% either way, we can't make an afermative claim either way.
 
I'm with you.

I understand the concept on probability the principal is establishing, I just think it misrepresents itself.

Until probability is 100% either way, we can't make an afermative claim either way.

I'll even go so far as to say that if you have to make plans regarding the cat, you have to assume it is both, but that's not the same as stating that it IS both.
 
If life -is- found on other planets, does this disprove the Bible's story of Creation?

The story of creation is not proven. Your assumption that the story of creation is true, is false.

In fact, evolution counters it. We are not products of two people who lived for over 900 years with one of them being born from a rib.

Will the religious still believe in the Bible and the story of creation? Of course, since sentient beings from other planets have no bearing on the Abrahamic religions and the story of creation.
 
Last edited:
The story of creation is not proven.
Irrelevant.
The question does not presume, nor does it hinge on, the story of creation to be proven. If said story were proven, then the questoin would be moot.

In fact, evolution counters it.
Hardly. It is entirely possible for Creation to happen in such a way to make evolution seem plauisble.

So...
If life -is- found on other planets, does this disprove the Bible's story of Creation?
 
Irrelevant.
The question does not presume, nor does it hinge on, the story of creation to be proven. If said story were proven, then the questoin would be moot.

Its not irrelevant. You are assuming that the story of creation is true and asking if the discovery of sentient life on other planets would prove it false.

Hardly. It is entirely possible for Creation to happen in such a way to make evolution seem plauisble.

We are talking Biblical creation in genesis, not some form of deistic creation. Is it possible for a god to create the universe, set it motion, and allow evolution to happen? Sure, there is a possibility, but when you compare genesis to scientific evidence, the genesis story does not hold up.

So...
If life -is- found on other planets, does this disprove the Bible's story of Creation?

Disprove? It hasn't been proven in the first place.
 
Its not irrelevant. You are assuming that the story of creation is true and asking if the discovery of sentient life on other planets would prove it false.
Read what I wrote:
-The question does not presume, nor does it hinge on, the story of creation to be proven.
-If said story were proven, then the questoin would be moot.

We are talking Biblical creation in genesis, not some form of deistic creation. Is it possible for a god to create the universe, set it motion, and allow evolution to happen? Sure, there is a possibility, but when you compare genesis to scientific evidence, the genesis story does not hold up.
This is only true if you interpret Genesis literally.
The question denotes no such presumption.

Disprove? It hasn't been proven in the first place.
If all you wanted to do was avoid the question, you should not have bothered rersponding in the first place.
 
Read what I wrote:
-The question does not presume, nor does it hinge on, the story of creation to be proven.
-If said story were proven, then the questoin would be moot.

You are asking if a hypothetical story would be disproved with the discovery of sentient life on other planets. It is a nonsense question since the hypothetical story was not proven in the first place.

Would the discovery of sentient life disprove the Bubuka creation story, the Massai creation story, the Voodoo creation story, ect?

This is only true if you interpret Genesis literally.
The question denotes no such presumption.

That is an on going problem of demarcating the literal from the metaphorical. There is no standard and it varies among people and changes with time.

If all you wanted to do was avoid the question, you should not have bothered rersponding in the first place.

I answered it in my very first reply. It is you that ignored it, so I will say it again. Discovery of sentient life has no bearing on the creation story and could be easily rationalized by saying that God never gave divinely inspiration to the authors of sentient life on other planets.
 
Last edited:
You are asking if a hypothetical story would be disproved with the discovery of sentient life on other planets.
If that's how you want to put it, yes -- would they hypothesis set forth in the bible be disproven by finding life on other planets?

I answered it in my very first reply. It is you that ignored it, so I will say it again. Discovery of sentient life has no bearing on the creation story and could be easily rationalized by saying that God never gave divinely inspiration to the authors of sentient life on other planets.

Your first response, the one I responded to:

The story of creation is not proven. Your assumption that the story of creation is true, is false.

In fact, evolution counters it. We are not products of two people who lived for over 900 years with one of them being born from a rib.

Will the religious still believe in the Bible and the story of creation? Of course, since sentient beings from other planets have no bearing on the Abrahamic religions and the story of creation.
Nowhere in here is found your response that "Discovery of sentient life has no bearing on the creation story".

But...thank you for actually addressing the question.
 
yes, because the whole idea of a God creating a people is ridiculous to begin with. And life on another planet will prove to all that we are not unique.
Without life, I see no reason for God; I think the two are inter-twined.
No one ever said that we were unique.
 
No, the Bible disproves the Bible. The Bible isn't consistent with scientific fact.

Fact: The world-drowing flood described for Noah....didn't happen.

Period.

That's it.

No flood.

The myth is....a myth, not true.

End of argument.

Some parts of the Bible have been historically verified, such as places and names. So, just be careful when you make claims like that. It's not ENTIRELY proven, but it does have truth within it.
 
Some parts of the Bible have been historically verified, such as places and names. So, just be careful when you make claims like that. It's not ENTIRELY proven, but it does have truth within it.

Has Jesus been proven other than one blurb by the historians of the time?
 
Back
Top Bottom