13 replies to this topic

[Calypsis4]

After viewing the new movie 'Prometheus' it occurred to me that the strict rationalist, neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, being the utter failure that it is in answering ultimate questions, may bring many of that persuasion into the fold of the E.T. theory...that being that space aliens or beings from another dimension 'planted' life here aeons ago and (a la 2011 a Space Odyssey) we are merely the product of extra-terrestrial genius after all.

What think ye, my brethren? Will the neo-evo's like Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers, & Ed Babinski's of our world come into that reality (kicking and screaming every inch of the way, no doubt) or will their movment die off to the likes of Chris Carter's (X-Files) & Steven Speilberg's of the E.T. ideology? Just consider that any theory of origins is better than "God did it" in the minds of our fiercest enemies on the scientific left.

I say that, if the Lord tarries, the old dogs will die off and the newer, younger ones will come to the E.T. theory as the failure of neo-theo becomes more and more evident an unsatisfactory theory.

Consider also that those who promoted this idea: i.e. Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick, Carl Sagan (in revealed in 'Contact'), and Gene Roddenberry were strong atheists and evolutionists but they all thought fondly of the idea that Extra-terrestrials were involved in our distant past. P.S. sorry for the typos. I had real technical problems just trying to correct them.

[gilbo12345]

Yeah I thought about this when I watched the movie too, though I am appreciative that its not anti-God

[Calypsis4]

Yeah I thought about this when I watched the movie too, though I am appreciative that its not anti-God

Thanks. But I will suggest here that it would be just as evil for skeptics of scripture to believe that visiting 'E.T.'s' are 'god's' and worship them as it is for atheists to deny the existence of God. I personally think that atheism, as a movement, will come to an end before the coming terrible tribulation is even half over.

Best wishes.

[Jesse]

I agree. I thought the same when I watched Prometheus.

*sigh* I guess they are going to try even harder to find alien life...

[gilbo12345]

Wouldn't the search for alien life be unscientific since we have no "evidence" of them... I find it ironic that one claims God as unscientific for the same reasons.

[Calypsis4]

Wouldn't the search for alien life be unscientific since we have no "evidence" of them... I find it ironic that one claims God as unscientific for the same reasons.

That depends on who you talk to I suppose. But the tide against E.T. intervention/involvment began to turn about 2 to 3 decades ago.

We will see what happens.

[gilbo12345]

That depends on who you talk to I suppose. But the tide against E.T. intervention/involvment began to turn about 2 to 3 decades ago.

We will see what happens.

I just think its a matter of favourites

[agnophilo123]

It's a sci-fi movie, relax.

[gilbo12345]

It's a sci-fi movie, relax.

Movies and other media are powerful ways to get ideas across to the public, however as I said, I'm just thankful it wasn't "in your face" anti-God. I don't mind stuff with anti-god stuff in it, but when it gets preachy then I get annoyed.

[Calypsis4]

It's a sci-fi movie, relax.

You need to get unrelaxed and deal with it. Since there is no evidence for slow and gradual naturalisitic evolution then what is left to the skeptic except the E.T. theory that was brought to the public by (gasp!) scientist Carl Sagan, atheist Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick, Steven Speilberg, and Gene Roddenberry? I assure you that in the end of things that theory will be preferable to "God did it"(wink).

[agnophilo123]

Movies and other media are powerful ways to get ideas across to the public, however as I said, I'm just thankful it wasn't "in your face" anti-God. I don't mind stuff with anti-god stuff in it, but when it gets preachy then I get annoyed.

Here for once, I actually agree with you. I liked the movie "saved" because it had a secular perspective but wasn't preachy or out to make either "side" out to be good or bad.

[agnophilo123]

You need to get unrelaxed and deal with it. Since there is no evidence for slow and gradual naturalisitic evolution then what is left to the skeptic except the E.T. theory that was brought to the public by (gasp!) scientist Carl Sagan, atheist Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick, Steven Speilberg, and Gene Roddenberry? I assure you that in the end of things that theory will be preferable to "God did it"(wink).

You need to get unrelaxed and deal with it. Since there is no evidence for slow and gradual naturalisitic evolution then what is left to the skeptic except the E.T. theory that was brought to the public by (gasp!) scientist Carl Sagan, atheist Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick, Steven Speilberg, and Gene Roddenberry? I assure you that in the end of things that theory will be preferable to "God did it"(wink).

Actually it is preferrable, but not because of bias against the notion of a "god", but because an evolved "designer" could, itself, have an explanation. And clearly an explanation that goes all the way to the beginning of biological complexity is preferrable to one that does not, at least in terms of how much it explains. Emotionally though many people will still want to believe in a god that dotes over them and will send them to paradise. ET is logically simpler than a deity, and abiogenesis is simpler than ET. So while there is no proof of any of the above my money's on abiogenesis. And there actually is evidence to support abiogenesis, though it's not conclusive at this time.

[Calypsis4]

Actually it is preferrable, but not because of bias against the notion of a "god", but because an evolved "designer" could, itself, have an explanation. And clearly an explanation that goes all the way to the beginning of biological complexity is preferrable to one that does not, at least in terms of how much it explains. Emotionally though many people will still want to believe in a god that dotes over them and will send them to paradise. ET is logically simpler than a deity, and abiogenesis is simpler than ET. So while there is no proof of any of the above my money's on abiogenesis. And there actually is evidence to support abiogenesis, though it's not conclusive at this time.

"clearly an explanation that goes all the way to the beginning of biological complexity."

Give an example of that biological complexity...of life generating from non-living matter by mere natural processes.

[gilbo12345]

"clearly an explanation that goes all the way to the beginning of biological complexity."

Give an example of that biological complexity...of life generating from non-living matter by mere natural processes.

Gets popcorn