no.

[color=blue:53eed18dec:6fba24b7ee]Ice, did U create this topic just 2 see how many "no"s U could get in a single thread?

[color=blue:53eed18dec:ed9bc48888]Ice, did U create this topic just 2 see how many "no"s U could get in a single thread?

SexLovely said:

I actually have a different idea in mind. I want to see how many people will answer "yes" and "no" to the topic, as there are far-reaching implications to either answer.

IceNine said:

[color=blue:1ddb8a7c3f:0aadf88d1a]I see...what are they then?

SexLovely said:

yeah you big freak WHY do you wait until the MORNING - when we must all be at work - to start the interesting threads??

The question at hand is this:

Are we alone in the universe? Do you believe that all the life in the universe is on the earth, or do you believe that we are merely on inhabited planet out of many?

Edited to add some possible implications of both stances.

Earth is NOT the only planet in the universe with life:

The principle of terrestrial mediocrity states that there is nothing special about our place in the universe. The universe contains elements that are necessary for the creation and proliferation of life and they will combine to create life. There was no special creation of life on earth by a god and our place is an inevitable consequence of the interaction of matter and energy in the universe.

The existence of life on other planets invalidates the bible and causes the foundation of deistic religions to crumble. Mankind cannot continue to believe that they are god's favored creation.

Earth IS the only planet in the universe with life:

Humans and the animals of the earth have a special place in the universe. The stories of the bible and religions are not invalidated by the existence of life elsewhere and proponents of religion can continue to promote a theory of special creation. Mankind can continue to believe that they are god's favored creation.

...
[This message was edited Wed Feb 5 7:53:04 PST 2003 by IceNine]

Tha Anthropic principle states that our universe seems to have been designed, and that the purpose of that design is the support of life. Would this design not be universal? In my opinion, I believe that finding life on other planets actually refutes the notion that life on this planet occurred by some freak accident. If life evolved accidentally here, then it would be nigh on impossible for it to evolve elsewhere. Okay, that's my two cents! Now I gotta get to work!

JediMaster said:

That has been inferred from strong anthropic principle, but the idea of the anthropic principle was not to prove design, but to state that everything is necessary for life to evolve.

The anthropic principle is built upon the foundation of the principle of terrestrial mediocrity and has been used to imply that there was no special creation by some and has been altered to imply that there was a design by others.

The existence of life on other planets invalidates the Bible and causes the foundation of deistic religions to crumble.

2) And that latter point is what trips me out about the "search for life" on other planets. "Finding" life is based on our own extremely limited and vastly ignorant concepts of what connotes life.

IceNine said:

1) I don't see how you can support that claim. God doesn't have to clear the totality of His creation with His creatures. For all we know, not only is there life on other planets -- but there exists life beyond even that familiar construct of planetary life or life within a universe. What if universes are all we're familiar with? What if there exists life beyond our tiny little, human-referenced definitions of it? What if our idea of life and existence is but a fraction of what God has created?

2) And that latter point is what trips me out about the "search for life" on other planets. "Finding" life is based on our own extremely limited and vastly ignorant concepts of what connotes life.