1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Life from Space; The Panspermia Hypothesis

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by ColoradoFB, Jul 27, 2003.

  1. ColoradoFB

    ColoradoFB New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Ratings:
    +0
  2. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,702
    Ratings:
    +239
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To hell with that 'interesting idea.'
     
  3. ColoradoFB

    ColoradoFB New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    587
    Ratings:
    +0
    Mr. Alcott, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about this idea. [​IMG]
     
  4. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Ratings:
    +1
    LOL, anything to avoid God. It's funny, but it's sad, too. The reason H & W postulated panspermia in the first place was because of the mathematical impossibility of life originating on earth.
     
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Ratings:
    +0
    And all for nought, because we don't know enough to calculate the odds for or against life arising on earth yet!

    Since we only know of one planet for sure on which life arose - and we don't know how many times and places life has "tried" to arise and "failed" - any calculation of the odds at this point is way premature.

    That said, as a Christian, I have faith in the Creator being more creative than to leave us all alone, isolated because the tremendous odds against life ever arising makes the average distance between habitated planets very very large . . . .

    How's that for a spin on the anthropic principle?
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Ratings:
    +23
    "We" have no evidence that "we" have evaluated 10% of all the solar systems in our own Galaxy - let alone all of the universe.

    "We" have lots of "guesswork" going on - but what about Christian view of Creation and the Universe and the Creator of all life, the savior of the World?

    Surely if God is "supernatural" enough to Save mankind, to come in human flesh, to be born of a virgin, to die a substitutionary atoning sacrifice for "our sin and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world", and to raise Himself from the dead, and to ascend into heaven - (taking less than billions and billions of years ) Then as Richard Dawkins notes - the "alternative" method that DOES take "billions and billions of year" is just plain silly. It is beneath such an efficient, all-knowing, all-powerful God.

    And the "proof" of the "resurrection" can not be found "in the lab" today. Nor of the virgin birth AND YET these are very "physical" historic events = as much as the creation of "Heavens and the Earth and the Sea AND ALL that is in them".

    "For IN SIX Days" the Lord MADE the heavens and the Earth and the Sea and ALL that is in them and rested the seventh day - Therefore the Lord blessed it and made it holy.

    Our 7 day week is a witness to this fact even today.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Ratings:
    +0
    What are you talking about?

    There you go again. Putting limits on what you think God can or cannot do. You think it is "beneath" God to use natural processes, eh? Then why is everything going on around you and in you a natural process?

    What "physical" proof of the resurrection do you expect to find today? We take that on faith. What evidence are you proposing for the virgin birth? Faith again. Now what physical evidence are you proposing for a recent creation? Opps, that should be easy to do. Where is it?

    I wouldn't rest much on that. Most ancients with a decent calendar used a seven day week. Theirs was based on the seven most important heavenly bodies: The sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Mercury, and the moon. Before you run off using that as proof, the Egytians and Chinese, AFAIK, originally had ten day weeks. If the seven days was universally originated as you propose then wouldn't the most ancient Chinese and Egyptians, being closer to the origin, be more likely to use seven day weeks?
     
  8. Alcott

    Alcott Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,702
    Ratings:
    +239
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I thought 7, as a number of completeness came mostly from the 'perfect circle,' where one circle can be drawn, and 6 others can be drawn touching each other and the first circle in the middle of them all. This can be shown by using 7 like coins. Since 7 is the number with which this works, with 6 on the outside and 1 in the 'special' position, as well as because human beings need a regular rest in order to function, that this became the basis of the 7-day week.
     
  9. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think men had a seven day week before they had perfect circles to play around with and notice that property of six surrounding one. I suppose they could use bird eggs, though . . .
     
Loading...