It still frightens me a little bit to think that so much of my life was totally devoted to Star Trek and almost nothing else.-Patrick Stewart link
Magic, spiritual leadership and ET, all in one week! As I have said before, having your own blog can be fun when you want to be self indulgent. Many of you know that I became a Christian at 17 during an episode of Star Trek. I have an incurable devotion to all things science fiction. I am also a self proclaimed expert on Christian science fiction.Yes, there is such a thing! So, when our friend, "Old John J", PhD Duke 1968, offered to write such a post, how could I resist? I hope you enjoy it. Ahead Warp Factor 6! (PS- Which sci fi icon said "fascinating" a lot?)
One of the consequences of the development of science is to remove humans from their unique place in creation (evolution) and the Earth from the center of the universe (astronomy, cosmology). The conflict between religious fundamentalists and evolution is ongoing and well documented. The first view of cosmology was warring capricious gods. Genesis starts with a declaration that there is a single God outside of the universe that created the universe. Monotheism with worship directed to the one true God is commanded.
The Ptolemaic cosmology put the Earth at the center of the universe. The Copernican cosmology made the Sun the center. Twentieth century astronomy showed that our sun was just one of a 100 billion stars in just one of a 100 billion galaxies. In spite of characterizing the almost infinite size of the present universe it also indicated that there was a beginning to it and it will not come to an end. Perhaps there is one more demotion coming: we will find evidence of other life, perhaps even Technological Civilizations, TCs, around other stars. I hope our evangelical theological leaders would carefully understand the implications of the intense study of the universe God created rather than simply denying the science.
Life beyond our planet, exobiology, is eagerly sought. Perhaps finding life away from Earth, especially a technologically advanced civilization, showing that life on Earth is not unique, will eliminate the need for a Creator God? I'll present some speculation about and information on the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). At this time there is no evidence of exobiology let alone ETI. The "exo" prefix meaning "outside of", is often used to indicate not part of planet Earth or our solar system depending on context. The terms astrobiology and extraterrestrial also used.
Something primal in us responds to science fiction books and movies such as 2001, Contact, ET, Close Encounters, Star Trek and many others. Paul Davies in “Are we Alone?” subtitled: “Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life” 1995, ISBN 0-465-00419-9 provides an excellent summary of SETI 20 years ago, including all but the current satellite exoplanet searches. Many radio based searches are described. Chapter 6 relates SETI and UFOs to ancient religious beliefs and quotes parts of the vision in Ezekiel Chapter 1 as being similar to many contemporary UFO encounters. I'll fill in a few details about the current search for planets around other stars, exoplanets.
Our current knowledge of physics states the speed of light, 186282 miles per second, is the maximum speed that can be achieved by any object. A common unit for astronomical distances is how far light travels in a year, the light year, slightly less than 6 trillion miles. To put a light year into perspective consider that it takes about 1.3 seconds for light to travel from Earth to the moon and a little over 8 minutes from the Sun to the Earth. The nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is approximately 4.2 light-years distant.
Chemical fueled rocket technology is barely adequate to accelerate an object to a speed of 7 miles per second., the minimum velocity needed to leave our solar system. An object traveling at 19 miles per second after leaving our solar system would take about 40000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. In the absence of new physics, physical travel to another solar system is impossible thus only radio or light can be used to observe or communicate with a distant exoplanet. Science fact tends to morph into science fiction for the more exotic forms of space travel.
Thus the question of the existence of ETI can only be answered affirmatively by demonstrating an unambiguous signal (observational evidence) from another solar system showing the presence of intelligence. The converse, that we on our planet are the only intelligence in the universe, can never be answered definitively due to the essentially infinite size of the universe containing a nearly infinite number of stars. The first step will be demonstrating that there are exoplanets that appear to contain biology similar to Earths.
In my opinion life or evidence of past life on other planets within our solar system does not qualify as an affirmative answer. However, the search for signs that life might have once existed on Mars is one stated goal of the current Curiosity rover. Large meteor impacts can eject material from a planet that ultimately can impact a different planet within our solar system. For the search for ETI or even simply exobiology to be considered successful life must definitely be extra solar system, from exoplanets not part of our solar system.. When, or even if, an affirmative answer will be forthcoming is not predictable.
The NASA Kepler satellite mission was designed to find exoplanets and has succeeded marvelously at this task. A planet is indicated by the dimming of the starlight when a planet crosses in front of the star, transiting, blocking a small amount of received light. Approximately 2700 candidates have been found. A candidate is given the status of an exoplanet when it is confirmed by Earth based observations. A planet moves its star very slightly as it circles it. This radial motion, along the line from earth to the star, can be detected by Earth based telescopes. One of the instruments used is the High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher, HARPS. So far 115 of the candidates have been verified by this procedure. Of these two are considered near Earth sized and orbit in their stars habitable zone. One finding of Kepler is that there are, on the average, more than 1 planet per star. Perhaps 1 in a 1000 of these planets will be near Earth sized and in the habitable zone of its star. Due to a failure in the Kepler pointing system the mission may be at its end.
NASA has announced a follow up mission to Kepler, TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite), to search for possible habitable Earth-like planets close to us (in astronomical terms). The mission proposal indicates approximately 2,000,000 stars will be observed with the expectation that more than 1000 exoplanets that are Earth sized or larger will be discovered. This mission is scheduled to fly in 2017.
A third observation method applicable to exoplanets is just that. Obtain images of the planet as it orbits its star. This has been accomplished for large, Jupiter sized, planets. Research is underway to extend direct imaging to the much smaller earth sized exoplanets that would be expected to show signs of life.
What would constitute scientific evidence for exobiology or ETI? The first evidence is likely to be marginal and scientifically debatable. Any such evidence will lead to more elaborate and capable measurements to either refute or strengthen the claims. The first step is to find planets of approximately Earth size in orbits around their star that will provide temperatures allowing significant amounts of liquid water. Liquid water is essential for the carbon based life on Earth, the only example we have. The term for this in the search is the habitable zone around a star.
Once Kepler and TESS locate planets considered suitable for supporting life a satellite mission designed to observe and characterize the atmosphere of these planets will likely be designed and flown. The experimental challenge of such a mission is separating the small amount of light reflected from a planet from the light of its star. The James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, the successor to the Hubble space telescope will have some capability to analyze exoplanet atmospheres. The JWST is currently scheduled for a 2018 launch. The present approach to such a mission would be determining if the planet atmosphere contains gases that would indicate life. The model is of course Earth where atmospheric oxygen, methane and carbon dioxide are all considered to have biological origins. The closer the exoplanet containing solar system is to ours the easier it will be to make the required observations.The AAAS journal SCIENCE, May 3, 2013, pages 565-581, has a special section on exoplanets.Satellites like Kepler and TESS are big science. The Kepler total mission cost is estimated at $600,000,000. The search for exobiology is a major effort.
Sentientlife is a lot more than just biology. In our case the period of time allowing us to view the cosmos and to contemplate sensing or communicating with an ETI, that is being a Technological Civilization, TC, is only the last 50-100 years of the 4.5 billion years age of the planet. None of the processes leading to terrestrial intelligence appear to be well defined in time. Consequently, if the basic evolution paradigm is accepted, a TC on a planet like ours could develop any time during a period of billions of years. This implies that an exo-TC must have an exceedingly long life time if we are going to be able to detect it, perhaps a lifetime of millions of years. The present lack of contact is known as the Fermi Paradox. There seems to be at least three possible answers to this: we are the only intelligence in the universe, interstellar travel is not possible, the life time of a TC is short – hundreds of years. Our civilization in not in a state of homeostasis with planet Earth so we can't estimate the lifetime of our TC phase.
Sadly, I suspect YEC believers that reject overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth and universe probably will not accept ANY evidence for the existence of life, especially, intelligent life in a different solar system. While many Christians may voice satisfaction that SETI has not produced any positive results it's far too soon to make a definitive negative claim about the search.
Disclaimer: I do not know when or even if an exoplanet harboring carbon based life, Earth like life, will be found. Given the time that is required to design and fly a satellite based observation mission I doubt credible evidence of exobiology could be found in less than ten years.
While all appropriate comments are welcome the particular questions I would like addressed in the comments are what implications for Christianity would come from convincingly demonstrating the existence of ETI or just exobiology or a extended, comprehensive search that doesn't find ETI? More specifically:
- Is there more motivation for the exobiology search than simple scientific curiosity?
- Does the existence of ETI eliminate the need for God?
- Does "God's only Son" limit what we may find?
- Would the Great Commission apply?
- What if a discovered ETI is evangelical about a God we can't recognize?
- If after extensive searching no exobiology or ETI is found, are there religious implications?
It's not hard to find speculation about the religious or philosophical meaning of exobiology. Most sources will give the answer expected by their worldview.
Here are a few Wikipedia search terms for more information about technical topics touched on in this post:
- Nearest Star
- Kepler
- TESS
- Curiosity Rover
- HARPS
- Habitable Zone
- Transit method
- Interstellar travel
- Homeostasis
- Fermi Paradox
- Drake Equation
- JWST
One final note: Dee leaves you with a phrase beloved by true sci fi addicts. I am dying to find out how many of you know about this with looking it up. Oh yeah, Live long and prosper, y'all.
Klaatu barada nikto
Lydia's Corner: 1 Chronicles 4:5-5:17 Acts 25:1-27 Psalm 5:1-12 Proverbs 18:19
Errata: The escape velocity from Earth, not the solar system, is the 7 miles/second given. The escape velocity (wikipedia “escape velocity”) from the solar system is about 26 miles/second. The Helios solar probe (wikipedia “helios probe”) reached a speed of 44 miles/second relative to planet Earth. The difference, 18 miles/second, is essentially the speed assumed to calculate the 40000 year travel time to Alpha Centauri, just at the limits of chemical fueled rocket technology.
“Doo, Dee, Doo Doo Doo Doo Doooooooo…”
Deb, Dee, everybody —
They already have that base covered.
Any positive results from SETI are ALL “DEEEEEEEEMONS!!!!!!!!!”
There’s already a Christianese folk belief (itself a reaction to UFO cults) that We Are Along and any ETs “are really Fallen Ones come to deceive us” and usher in the End Times(TM). The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: I loved X Files.
Just before I go to bed and knock off a killer su doku, a quick confession: yes, I recognised the quote from The Day the Earth Stood Still immediately.
Here’s another teaser: where does the “word” STENDEC come from?
@ Nick Bulbeck: I had no doubt that you would. And I am a big girl-I admit I do not know what STENDEC comes from. Now I will look it up.
Thank you oldJohnJ for a thought-provoking article. I would recommend C S Lewis’s short essay, “Religion and Rocketry”, as a helpful read in conjunction with this, as he attempts to tackle some of the theological questions.
As with many things in this life, the issue is not helped by the extremes on either side who either flatly deny the possibility a priori or else treat potential TCs as some sort of divine or enlightened salvation for planet Earth (Heaven’s Gate being the most tragic example). I’ve remarked several times to people that if I promised to show them extraterrestrial life and then produced a patch of lichen or similar from another planet, they’d be rather disappointed – “alien life” for many people means ET or Mr Spock, not primitive algae, microbes or the simpler zoological forms, even though these are far more likely on some planets that we would consider inhospitable.
Dee, I loved the X-Files too but was rather disappointed when they strayed into von Daniken territory! At that point I felt they were losing the plot and the freshness. Still a great programme though.
Kolya wrote:
I loved the alien themed shows. Still love the story in which Muldar was dancing with a handicapped person to “Walking in Memphis.” I believe…..
Was that the one with the Cher look-alike? I enjoyed some of the alien themed ones too but thought they ran out of steam a bit in series 8 and 9. But I was sorry when it ended so abruptly. TV hasn’t been the same since!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I’ve seen a group that ministers to people who deal with “alien abductions”. They claim the “abductions” are demonic and say they have been able to stop them using the name of Christ. From what I saw it seemed pretty convincing. But that only speaks into abductions, not UFOs or other supposed encounters.
Sci fi icon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFods1KSWsQ
Klaatu barada nikto
First spoken by actor Michael Rennie in the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still
I thought that the 2009 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still with Keanu Reeves was well put together. Like its 1951 predecessor, it also introduced philosophical and moral questions.
Dang, I failed the test. I was thinking “Army Of Darkness”, though I figured that wasn’t the origination of the phrase.
I think it is highly likely that we are indeed alone in the universe. But if someday we find out we are not, then we will have some tough questions regarding scripture (though I do not believe insurmountable). I’m not a fan of spending vast amounts of money on the search, though.
Dee asked: Which sci fi icon said “fascinating” a lot?
Spock
Theodicy is part of the answer to the questions. What is the purpose of man’s creation? Some believe it was to resolve the Angelic Conflict which implies a special and exclusive event which is reflected in Christ becoming our DNA.
In fact it may be more than implying but necessitating such a view.
The antiquity if the earth, our solar system and the rest of our galaxy and the universe does present evidence of a history before humanity’s creation and purpose on earth, evidence of pre-human history but an evidence which does not include a narrative.
And with reference to theodicy and the Angelic Conflict model, there does seem to be a universal judgment implied in Scripture in consequence to the Angelic Rebellion/Conflict, a cataclysm of planetary bombardment and disruption, the results of which we may see on the surface of planets and their moons.
Some accuse man of narcissism in viewing himself as the only sentient/spiritual beings in the universe. But maybe it is not a matter of narcissism but theodic implication. Satan and demons were cast to earth and limited to earth with regard to habitation (suggesting interplanetary or galactic movement abilities and/or privileges prior to this) while they appeal their case and until their final judgment comes. And we, being created “a little lower than the angels” as evidenced by our extreme limitations in which we can really only perpetuate on earth along with the special event of earth’s preparation and establishment for humanity and lower life appears to strongly suggest that while locally we may not be the center of the universe, we are with regard to God’s purpose in time which inside as unique creation and exclude similar or same kinds elsewhere.
@ ChrisCross: YOu win!
Jeff S wrote:
Kind of like the church that had to deal with the fact that the earth revolved around the sun and that the earth is not the center of the universe but in a rather insignificant arm of the Milky Way.
Our Scripture tells us the God created the universe, the beings in heaven and man. Except for the angelic rebellion, it becomes our story, no one else’s story. Imagine, for example, a world in which beings did not fall. Just as I become excited as we explore the vents at the bottom of the ocean with wondrous creatures, I love to imagine a universe filled with wondrous creatures.
@ Alex Guggenheim: Then, there is the possibility of places where the beings did not fall. Lewis was fond of this view. Could our planet be the dark one, where sinful man and fallen angels coexist until the Second Coming?
@ Muff Potter: Awesome. I did not see the remake. I must do so.
@ Janey: Great clip!
Yeah, I knew the three words. As a kid I thought the movie depended on me remembering them.
Possibly but it appears to me that the expanded life use of the universe by way of our solar system and galaxy has been suspended during human history as the appeal portion of the Angelic trial proceeds with humanity created and entered into evidence by the prosecution However, if it was that other unfallens (outside of Angels) exist it seems the possibility of our casual contact would be unlikely and outside of eschatological indicators. But still if so I hope they like college football.@ dee:
@ Alex Guggenheim:
LOL..If I were a lawyer I’d love the power to create my own evidence to use. That power would seem to imply a failsafe case.
🙂
Jeff S wrote:
I tend to lean this way too, that we are unique in the Cosmos and that humans are indeed the apple of the Almighty’s eye. And if not? It doesn’t affect my here and now or my views concerning the Bible one bit. Vast sums of money have always been economic drivers, if there’s money to be made in them thar’ stars, money will find a way to get there.
Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Or narcicssism with a Theodic Implication coat of paint.
This subject has been bandied about many times over at Internet Monk:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/is-there-life-on-other-planets
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/evangelicals-in-the-classroom-of-the-star-trek-universe
Oh, and while Born-Agains keep chanting “We Are Alone, Scripture Scripture Scripture”, us Romish Papists have been thnking of First Contact since “alien races” lived on faraway lands instead of exoplanets and were sourced from Medieval traveller’s tales instead of UFOlogy:
http://m-francis.livejournal.com/78828.html
In the case of God introducing humanity as evidence, it seems to me based on constant satanic accusations against mankind to God, that Satan believes it is not such failsafe evidence. But then that is the crux of Satan’s position, that God is wrong and he is right and God is to blame and never to be believed.
It is helpful to be God when one is a lawyer. But it does speak to more theodic concerns that God would create and introduce into evidence such fallible ones as us, in particular our deliberate design being lower than the Angels@ Argo:
P.S. Star Trek’s Enterprise series got better with each year while STNG lost itself the last few tears. Enterprise maintained its faithfulness to Sci-Fi while telling its story. The Vulcan in the catsuit was its one glaring flaw. More subtlety was needed there. The Doctor’s role grew well.
Many Cnristian thinkers and SF writers have thought about this in depth – including those who don’t consider Jesus stupid for believing the Genesis account.
Medieval Christian scholars believed that God liked life, and would likely have created it anywhere it could exist.
If you would read C. S. Lewis’ _The Discarded Image_ you will find that contrary to the atheists like Carl Sagan or Voltaire, the Ptolomaic model as used by Christians did not see Earth as the center of the universe, but at the bottom of a well. The whole ‘Copernican principle’ is based on a slander. The well being the depth of our depravity and sin. Only hell was worse.
Believing Jesus and the Genesis account is by no means anti-scientific, though it does involve a different interpretation of the data.
To understand how science works in practice, rather than placing philosophical naturalist popes like Carl Sagan on a pedestal, read Thomas Kuhn’s _The Nature of Scientific Revolutions_, and Pearcy and Thaxton’s _The Soul of Science. You may also find useful information in philosophers of science such as Karl Jaki and Alfred North Whitehead.
@ Alex Guggenheim:
I think you have a good handle on the theory…biblically sound.
I just struggle with the logic of the metaphysics (something I’m known for). If we are flawed, would that not speak to a design flaw? And then God, being the designer would be culpable? And if it isn’t a flaw, but we were purposefully designed with the inherent ability to “break” (sin), doesn’t that make God even more culpable for sin?
Why would God design us with the innate ability to do that which He declares is evil? It is like designing a car that is purposefully able to both run and break down.
But your theory is cool. I’m just not sure how the “creation of evidence” works in terms of a fair trial. The evidence is either there or not. So…yeah, it’s the “first cause” idea that I have trouble reconciling in this scenario.
Dee – I haven’t read any comments or even what John wrote (I’ll get to that) but sitting in my car waiting for the rain to let up…two things….
“Fascinating.” Was an original Spock phrase. Iconic? Indeed.
The quote at the end? The Day the Earth Stood Still – the original with Patrick Rieny (sp?) and Patricia Neal.
F&SF fan from childhood, too.
I’m curious which episode of Star Trek were you watching when you got saved?
Some members of my family condemned Star Trek as “atheist propaganda”……sigh.
I would not, and I am YEC, but then, I do not see a reason to believe there is life on other planets. Maybe there is, but the Bible is silent on the issue either way.
Is there some kind of compelling reason people should believe that there are aliens in outer space, does it impact the Gospel, do I need to believe in Martians on Mars to be saved? It’s fun to ponder, but I don’t see why one would need to believe in it.
Also, I don’t think the evidence for old earth age is “overwhelming.”
BTW, I’m a YEC who is a huge Sci Fi fan, but I lean more to Star Wars, not Star Trek.
I am entertained by schlocky Sci Fi entertainment too, such as Sharknado.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
It’s reassuring to see that atheist propaganda is just as cheesy and easily-parodied as Christian propaganda!
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Yes, I wonder what Star Trek episode she was as well. Wonder if it was the one about the the sun/son.
Some in my family have no appreciation for SciFi, something that shouldn’t be explored..lol. Me, I like it all, including, Battlestar Galactica.
“Blog Trek : Where ‘NoGod’ Has Gone Before?”
hmmm…
Sci-fi fun often ignores the tough questions about human existence; what about God’s?
Re-occurring in the Star Trek ‘universe’, is the theme that ‘there is no God’.
What?
It is the same for mamy other
cinema science fiction classics as well.
huh?
Trend analysis…
(today, some 34 % of all Christians don’t even read their bibles)
(tear)
Chuck da scriptures, n’ go ta light speed?
Engage?
To where?
(sadface)
The Bible speaks of a new heaven and a new earth:
¶ “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.”
The Bible culminates its pages with the announcement that there will one day be a “new heaven and a new earth” :
¶ “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.”
Fascinating.
*
Jesus said the following to those gathered in His Name, prior to His departure:
¶ “…And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ ”
hmmm…
Speculation and exploration have their place, yet Jesus, with all this power and authority in heaven and earth stuff, pledges to take mankind to where no ‘one’ has gone before…
Zooooooooom!
There is still a cushy room in His ‘house’ for you.
(Please call upon His Name!)
Blessings!
Sopy
—
@ Dee:
Big fan of the Space Trilogy, I see. 😉
“Army of Darkness!” Now there’s a movie I didn’t expect to see mentioned here. Bruce Campbell came and spoke at our college; it may have been shortly after his book “Confessions of a B Movie Actor” was published. He seemed like a nice guy, not a jerk like so many Hollywood types.
I use a Battlestar Galactica image as my avatar on another site. I looked for a good Farscape or Lost one but didn’t see any I liked as much. I don’t know if I remembered to search for an X-Files avatar. I wanted one a little more obscure than Star Trek (which I grew up on) or Doctor Who.
Favorite characters:
Quark from Deep Space Nine – Always interesting with his endless scheming to pull one over on Odo.
Londo Molari from Babylon 5 – We joke about having “keepers” control us
Aeryn Sun from Farscape – It’s nice to have a show with a strong woman lead.
Capt Archer from Enterprise – He seems a lot more fun and friendlier than Picard.
Dee, thought you would appreciate this. Twenty years ago, being the big STHG fan that I was and finding out that they accepted and considered unsolicited scripts, I wrote two tlelplays and submitted them. Being the fan you are, you may appreciate the timimg. I sent the first the end of ’92 and the second the beginning of ’93.
They did not accept them, but they did read them and put the studio log stamp on them, And I got a letter from Mivhael Pillar himself….
Now, the timimg – no announcements had been made, but Next Gen had been cancelled. Of course, now we know the final episode aired in May ’94. But that was not in the letter. So I didn’t realize at the time that they had already chosen all the episodes when I submitted mine.
Now to the letter….first, I was still emmersed in the abusive environment – sharing a bedroom with my narcossistic mother, at the time and my ability to positively evaluate my own abiliyies or the compliments of strangers was almost non-existant (still struggle with that 🙂 ). So, I didn’t comprehend what the executive producer of the show was saying to me…He said they could not use my scripts at this time (the fact that they read them knowing they had the show sown up amazes me now). He then encouraged me to rework them for the new show they had in development called Deep Space Nine,
Sadly, I didn’t do that. I belived what family said – that it was a form letter and he was just being nice.
Ha ha, yes, “Sharknado”… that’s even been in one of the papers over here as an outrageous piece of SF kitsch! I confess to a soft spot for low-budget 50s B-movies myself – it was such a pleasure when they showed them late night on terrestrial channels in the old days.
On a serious note, it may be a reasonable assumption that many of us will never know whether life exists on other worlds as (a) the distances involved are so great and (b) it would probably be impossible even with the most sophisticated telescopes to peer through the atmosphere of a planet light years away and be able to state categorically that life exists there (other sensors might be able to detect such information from an orbiting probe, but getting one into orbit there would take thousands of years given current technology). And a patch of lichen or jellyfish (for example) is not going to present itself in earth orbit for our convenience. Even if civilisations exist elsewhere in the universe, unless they have really found a way to travel faster than light, it is most likely that we would continue ad infinitum in ignorance of one another’s existence.
I believe other biological forms are theoretically possible in the universe, but again I suggest it’s a far cry from the evolution (or creation) of life elsewhere to having other creatures essentially made in the image of God. But I don’t think it fundamentally affects faith. Some atheists like to claim that religion makes man think is the centre of the universe, but Psalm 8 recognised three thousand years ago that man in some ways is of small account – and modern astronomy and geology with their vast distances and deep time just reinforce this. Man is however of huge significance in God’s purposes for the earth, if not for the rest of the universe.
“Does the existence of ETI eliminate the need for God? ”
dang fascinating topic and information. off the top of my head, God would have created the ETI as well. So, all continue to need God, earthling and alien alike, as the life-giving source.
The question that comes to MY mind is, how would the existence of ETI impact the role the bible has come to play in religious life?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Does “God’s only Son” limit what we may find?”
Old John J, can you rephrase this question? it’s me, not you.
@ Jeff S:
“I think it is highly likely that we are indeed alone in the universe.”
++++++++++++++
my husband mentioned something similar to me a few minutes ago. (he muttered something about it’s probably just a black canvas with pin pricks. That pretty much killed the philosophical conversation I was hoping to have. As to what the light source is behind the pin pricks and how they got there, he was suddenly closed for business)
Jeff S, since ETI can neither be confirmed nor denied, can you give me your reasons for “highly unlikely”?
@ elastigirl:
…I mean, “highly likely”
off topic/
I responded to linda’s post here, from the thread, “Demanding a “Spiritual Leader” for a Husband? Then 33% of You Will Not Marry”
@ elastigirl: I think it’s highly likely that there are other planets with intelligent lifeforms, but hey… I realize that’s not a popular sentiment in some quarters. (Though the “whys” of that confound me.)
As for not recognizing other lifeforms as intelligent, I’d say we have that problem on this planet in the here and now, as the concept of animals actually feeling pain has only recently been acknowledged. (And it’s still a surprise for most folks re. fish, but lots of research indicates that they do.)
We have a *lot* of exploring to do on this planet, I’m thinking… though if I could travel to other planets and other galaxies, I believe I’d want to go!
Daisy wrote:
At present, the existence of any kind of life except on Earth is an open scientific question. In the absence of evidence there is no need to believe in any kind of exobiology. However the search is proceeding and the discovery of possible Earth like planets around other stars increases the chances that some form of exobiology may exist. Each answered question suggests additional questions. The likely next question is do any of the Earth like planets have an Earth like atmosphere. Perhaps the earliest a yes answer could be put forth is in 10 years.
@ numo:
hi, numo.
Similar to my question to Jeff S, since ETI can neither be confirmed nor denied, what are your reasons for “highly likely that there are other planets with intelligent life forms”?
I do tend to think ETI exists. But for perhaps just as fanciful reasons as my husbands’ pin-pricked-canvas-night-sky conversation stopper. But I do have evidence, albeit unexplained.
Anyone ever see footage of the Phoenix Lights, from 3/13/1997? Thousands of people saw it, many videotapes made, the governor of Arizona saw it (Fife Symington) & although at first ridiculing it (to play it down so as to prevent panic) he later acknowledged seeing it and described it as astounding (believing it himself to be extraterrestrial).
This, other things, as well as a pilot friend who leaked to me “there’s SOMEthing out there” but refused to elaborate further.
STOP ROLLING YOUR EYES!!
I’m sorry, Old John J, that I can’t dialog on a more scientific level. Physics For Poets couldn’t even reach me.
@ oldJohnJ:
“I think it’s highly likely that there are other planets with intelligent lifeforms, but hey… I realize that’s not a popular sentiment in some quarters. (Though the “whys” of that confound me.)”
+++++++++++++
yeah… the “whys”… My husband’s “why” he doesn’t believe in ETI?
“I just don’t.”
I rather miss StarTrek: Voyager with Kate Mulgrew as Captain Janeway. Generally I never cared much for network TV but I liked that show.
Old John J asked,
“What if a discovered ETI is evangelical about a God we can’t recognize?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WOW, what a question! Perhaps the ETI would be considered like any other person of another religion. Hopefully respected, but disagreed with.
If the ETI were to interact with humans, and [for the sake of the discussion] should this human be YOU(!), if you’re a Christian would you “evangelize” said ETI?
Can you evangelize an ETI?? Can an ETI get saved? Did Jesus die for an ETI??
I’d say absolutely yes. Although i’m not into evangelizing and have difficulty with the whole concept.
BUT, now that I think about it… does the “sin issue” that plagues human beings necessarily also plague any ETI? Are ALL intelligent life forms, terrestrial and extraterrestrial, by logical necessity incapable of not sinning?
what if you met an ETI who didn’t have a sin nature? God created it/him/her, but if it/him/her simply did not have knowledge of I AM, what do you say? What happens?
you know, just in case…
Off topic but not too far off topic. Did anyone read about the German researchers who were able to trap light itself inside a crystal for a full minute? The implications may vindicate some of Nikola Tesla’s unconventional views after all.
@ elastigirl:
My first question (if contact with ETI did indeed become a reality) would be:
Can we peacefully coexist?
Old John J asks, “Is there more motivation for the exobiology search than simple scientific curiosity?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
as in, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth AND THE UNIVERSE”?
if so, WHAT A QUESTION!
but, like I mentioned above, are ALL intelligent life forms of necessity incapable of not sinning?
is it possible for an extraterrestrial intelligent life form to not have a sin nature?
if they did not have awareness of I AM, does that sheer innocent ignorance mean eternal curtains for them? despite no sin nature?
…dee, anyone, does Christian science fiction go there?? (as in “here”, probing these kinds of questions) i’m thoroughly intrigued.
I have a deep sentimental attachment to STTNG as it pretty much kept me going through some very tough years (from 11 to 18…most of which was not a fun time at all) but I think DS9 is my favorite of the series. (And not just because when I was in LA I was once able to tour the Voyager set and the guy snuck us into the Defiant bridge set as well, on a different stage, and we all took our turns sitting in the captain’s chair…seriously, it was sooooooooo cool!)
I don’t have anything substantive to contribute but I am a huge second-generation Trekkie so sort of had to delurk at least briefly. 🙂
Off Topic: Eagle, who has posted here frequently, is back in the hospital with a reoccurrence of the bacterial infection he had last year.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Londo had some of the all-time best lines.
@ Muff Potter:
yes, the only reasonable ice breaker.
If ETI on friendly as opposed to hostile terms, if you did want to take conversation to spiritual places (assuming there’s adequate fluency in your understanding of each other), what would you ask? how would the fact of Jesus Christ be relevant to said ETI?
Old John J asks,
“Does “God’s only Son” limit what we may find?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alright, i’ll take a stab at it.
Do you mean does “God’s only Son”, become human, having given his life to build the bridge between humanity and God, make intelligent life beyond humans impossible or unlikely?
Or, since Jesus is human whose purpose primarily deals with humans (although I think animals & all earth life forms benefit), does that limit the whole creative ball of wax to humanity & co. on earth?
I don’t think so. I can conceive of God having created other ETIs besides what we call “earth” and “us”.
If there are ETI, then I AM / Logos / Holy Spirit created them as well. If ETI beings were not capable of not sinning (like human beings), to me, it’s reasonable and logical that I AM would have sought to make contact with them just like on earth. It is reasonable and logical to me that I AM would have communicated in a way that was perceivable, and that at least ONE ETI being would have responded. Perhaps a history similar to Israel ensued. Or, perhaps something quite different. Culminating in the arrival of Logos to build the bridge that was required to restore relationship between ETIs & I AM.
(oy, I feel like i’m laying the foundation of my own Heaven’s Gate here… or “Red Dwarf But Christian”)
where is everyone?
@ elastigirl:
Asleep in the east 😉
@ Tina:
Argh!! How can we help him? I’m so sad to hear this 🙁
@ Jeannette Altes:
Wow, Jeanette, that is quite a compliment to your creative and writing abilities. Such a pity your family convinced you otherwise.
ReportFrom Earth – ExoNeoCalvinism: Promoting A Community Of Intelligent Agents?
hmmm…
Star Trek, a Hollywood celluloid creation, produced from the mind of a man (Gene Roddenberry) who really believed there was no God as the scriptures declare.
huh?
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes” ~ Gene Roddenberry
” I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will – and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.” ~ Gene Roddenberry
“I think God is as much a basic ingredient in the universe as neutrons and positrons. This is the prime force, when we look around the universe.” ~ Gene Roddenberry
http://www.roddenberry.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0734472/
Yet apparently, he (Gene Roddenberry) offered his fellow man more hope for the future than those in the American Neo-Calvinist religious movement demonstrate today.
” It speaks to some basic human needs, that there is a tomorrow – it’s not all going to be over in a big flash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans. No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids – human beings built them because they’re clever and they work hard. And ‘Star Trek’ is about those things.” ~ Gene Roddenberry
“We have within reach, now, the attainment of almost every dream of mankind.” ~ Gene Roddenberry
“I believe in humanity. We are an incredible species. We’re still just a child creature, we’re still being nasty to each other. And all children go through those phases. We’re growing up, we’re moving into adolescence now. When we grow up – man, we’re going to be something! ” ~ Gene Roddenberry
“I’m in a period of growth and expansion. I’m taking long, hard looks at the world and what’s happening in it, analyzing and thinking. I’m trying to become acquainted with the universe — with the part of it I occupy — and trying to settle, for myself, what my relationship with it is.” ~ Gene Roddenberry
What?
His (Gene Roddenberry) world was one of persuasion. In contrast, the Neo-Calvinists, an American 501c non-profit protestant religious movement, by the corruption and the twisting of New Testament scripture, has become one of death, fear, force, and exclusion.
(sadface)
From what the Bible depicts of God, He does not seem to delight in robot-like individuals. He rather prefers intelligent agents who can make their own decisions and speak for themselves.
The real issue that continues to confound believers and non-believers alike is whether a community of mechanistic agents — who, by design, cannot really make a choice, therefore provide a forced service to God. Is this condition more desirable than a community of intelligent agents who willingly choose to have a relationship with Him?
hmmm…
To boldly go, because Jesus has lead the way?
To live is Christ, the words of eternal life, great gain…The promise of a better tomorrow, today.
Facinating.
¶ “Heaven and earth shall pass away, …my words will not.” ~ Jesus
WoW!
Blessings!
ATB
Sopy
—
@ oldJohnJ:
You wrote
I completely agree with that statement, now if only theists would realize that this same line of reasoning should apply to god as well.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Though the conversations are interesting The Internet Monk has gone downhill bit by bit with the passing of its founder. It tolerates very unbounded idealism/philosophy for its theological constructs. The lean to the left is a out the MSNBC kind. No thanks.
As to the dog headed men, there are only stories and speculation. They are interesting a bit but there is nothing but guessing and speculation. It does demonstrate that people believed in chimeras but that is not new.
@ Argo:
Argo
Remember it is God and not us being accused of having failed with resoect to Satan’s actions ehich brought a out his fall which Satan asserts is God’s doing which is why we were made as we were, lower than the angels, that we may demonstrate that God’s grace is sufficient.
The tragedy is not our fall but was to be God’s failure to provide grace for our need of redemption. But that failure did not occur.
Our tragedy, however, is not availing ourselves to that grace and not believing the gospel but instead joining Satan in rejecting God’s way.
That is not to say man’s fall was or is not tragic but that it is not central to the entire event of humanity, God and the Angelic Conflict.
Anyone else notice how fast the battle lines got drawn on this subject?
And how the factions broke down along conventional/expected lines?
@ Sopwith:
Gene Roddenberry strikes me as a fanboy type who made good, then kept returning over and over to his one success, becoming his own creation’s biggest fanboy.
Have you ever noticed the two Standard Roddenberry scripts?
1) We go past the edge of the Universe, encounter God, and discover that God is either (a) Insane, (b) Malevolent, or (c) Both.
2) We encounter a “Transcendental” alien race (gods in all but name) who immediately put all humanity on trial for our “sins du jour”, with extinction as the penalty. And a representative of humanity (i.e. the Kirk) has to defend and argue why humanity should live.
For a guy who was as Anti-Theist as Madelyn Murray O’Hair, Roddenberry sure seemed obsessed with the theme of The Last Judgment.
Also, there’s a reason why Star Trek hit it off so big and demonstrated staying power.
Timing.
Star Trek premiered just under four years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Cold War had turned into Extreme Trendy Pessimism — the 1000% certainty of Total Human Extinction by the year 2000 in the Inevitable Global Thermonuclear War.
And in the middle of this trendy Pessimism came a TV space opera where we DIDN’T all blow ourselves up in the 20th, but walked the stars, Boldly Going Where No Man Had Gone Before. Star Trek brought Hope for a future in a time of Dark to No Future.
You see a similar pattern with Star Wars premiering at the peak of Post-Vietnam Angst, bringing back Good Guys and Bad Guys (and letting the Good Guys WIN, which had become unheard of at the time).
And today, with My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic galloping in amid Trendy Nihilism and Trendy Pessimism, spreading hope when again It’s All Over But The Screaming.
All too often today, the churches are on the side of the No-Future Nihilism — “It’s All Gonna Burn — Any Minute Now.” We need hope more tangible than Fluffy Cloud Heaven and Beam-Me-Up-Jeesus. We need brightness on the horizon; we need hope. And when the churches have dropped the ball, we take our hope from others.
@ Bridget: Or watching Scandinavian crime shows… (me).
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Sure did. It reminds of the scene in Ridley Scott’s film Kingdom of Heaven
in which the Templar faction is whipping up war fervor with Saladin. They all raise their swords skyward with shouts of: GOD WILLS IT !
@ Tina:
Thank you for letting us know this sad news about Eagle. I am praying for him.
The existence of other planets with human-equivalent lifeforms would not bother me at all. The most bother would be to those of the YEC persuasion, but that wouldn’t last long, because the ringleaders of the YEC movement are given to just making up wild crazy crap to make something fit in.
If anything, the most significant effect of such an event would be the Dreaded Uniting of Earth Under One Government(TM) because on the galactic scale, nations become equivalent to counties and planets become the new nations. If the other civilization(s) were anything like us, there is nothing to suggest they are peaceful or even friendly. They could be a civilization of Nazi-like conquerors after all.
—————
@Daisy
Also, just a quick aside since I mentioned YEC.
YEC is not a valid scientific position, especially if you don’t think the current evidence for an old earth is enough.
The only evidence for a young earth is the geneologies in the bible, and these were not made to measure time but to track ancestry. Even when they are shoehorned into being a date system, they yield a range of 4 to 11 thousand years. If you want to assume the middle ground, 7500 years, that’s a margin of error of ~47%. There is no natural evidence (any you may have been told is a half truth at best, an outright falsehood at worst.)
Now compare that to the evidence of an old earth, where there are hundreds of diverse dating methods that all agree with each other, most with low single digit error margins and an abundance of natural evidence to boot.
You may still choose to say “that’s not enough evidence”, but the fact is that if the second sentence is “so I believe in a young earth” you are being hypocritical since you are taking a position with far less evidence.
“This position with hundreds of pieces of evidence does not have enough evidence, therefore I choose the position with one piece of evidence” = irrational and illogical.
Young earth is not a fact or evidence based position, it is simply an “I believe it because I want to” belief. Just wanted to point that out.
@HUG
Actually in the Trek universe we did blow ourselves up, but we survived, saw the error of our ways and became better for it. This is actually the plot of the TNG pilot.
My worry with ETI is completely non-theological. The first thing I always think of is how shortsighted the Martians were in War of the Worlds. The last thing we would want to happen is to accidentally wipe out the human race because we’re not immune to the native bacteria of Planet XYZ, or accidentally wipe out the alien civilization because they’re not immune to the common cold.
KarltonGeorge wrote:
Here is some solid evidence about our present universe that seems to require something that is not part of it: The 1978 Nobel Physics Prize (Penzias & Wilson) was for experimental evidence, the 3 degree Kelvin background cosmic microwave radiation, confirming the Big Bang, the birth of our universe. The 2011 Nobel Physics (Perlmutter, Schmidt & Riess) was for astronomical observations indicating the expansion of universe is accelerating, not decelerating. Thus, our universe had a moment of creation but does not appear to have a built-in end. There is no support for an infinite repeating cycle of universe creations and deaths. Our universe is a unique event. This suggests there is something “outside” of the observable universe responsible for creating it.
@ oldJohnJ:
Empiricism cannot be the only rationale for belief. I think this is you’re point, right?
And this point is extremely important. If we only believe based on what we can observe, then inductive reasoning is excluded. This means that reason cannot drive what is acceptable for “proof”.
This is why athiests love to appeal to empiricism. It absolves them of having to acknowledge the rationale arguments for God. It provides an impenetrable hedge against ever “losing” the debate. If we can’t SHOW them God, He cannot exist, is the fuzzy logic.
Of course, this means they cannot have an opinion about ANYTHING they cannot observe. They can’t believe in gravity, for instance, because they can’t observe it. They can observe effects of it, but this is inductive evidence, not empirical. So, according to their own definition, they must deny it.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yes…brilliant comment. I never thought of that before re Star Trek, but now that you mention it…I totally see it.
@ JustSomeGuy:
In my opinion science is nothing more than a measuring grid humans have imposed upon reality in order to make sense of it. The grid is seldom wrong and others will confirm the same measurements, but the conclusions derived from the grid can be dreadfully wrong.
@ Alex Guggenheim:
Yes…I do agree with you on the theological particulars of the scenario.
Where I struggle is with the idea of the creative ACT of God in producing man.
If God created man alone, and man “malfunctioned” then God, being the sole designer and maker, is wholly responsible for man’s malfunction…man’s sin. He cannot be absolved of ultimate culpability. Similarly, if God PURPOSELY designed man to be able to malfunction (choose to sin) as a purposely imbedded innate ability, then God must be held responsible for the malfunction because He created it. God cannot be the direct creator and then wash His hands of the consequences.
Either way, the whole legal proceeding breaks down. All of sudden, God is the one on trial. HE made everything consciously.
What can be His defense ?
This is the argument Christians must find a rational defense for.
I don’t take science as a religion. But I don’t deny that science does directly dispel certain religious ideas and informs others.
Science can’t give you a moral philosophy (as history reliably shows, since it has been shoehorned into that purpose repeatedly and ended badly every time) or tell you why the universe is here but it can tell it’s age quite reliably.
Science as a religion only results in madness and insanity, as does religion without science.
@ elastigirl:
First to be clear, when I said I think it’s highly unlikely, it is my reasoning based on a not well researched view of the subject. So it’s just a layman’s belief, not something I expect (or want) to convince anyone of.
But here is my reasoning- there are really three aspects to it.
First, for the sake of argument (so my belief is not tied to theism), let’s grant for a second that life somehow evolved without the help of a Creator. The odds against this happening are astronomical, almost to the point of absurdity. Now the skeptic will say that the “odds” of it happening are a certainty because we can see that it actually happened. Fine- I’ll grant that point for this discussion; however, the odds of it happening again are still astronomical, and this time without certainty. Yes, space is big, but the odds seem against it. That’s one reason I think it is highly unlikely.
So now let’s add God into the mix (since I don’t think we evolved without a Creator). There is nothing to indicate to me in scripture that God created any other beings of intelligence like humans. Humans DO appear to be the center of the universe in that respect. Now could this be wrong (like Dee pointed out how the church was wrong before about thinking we were the physical center of the universe)? Yes, but without evidence to say otherwise, I’m inclined to believe it is unlikely.
Finally, the fact that we are alive and well seems to me an indication that we are alone in the universe. By that, I’m assuming that if life does exist elsewhere, over the span of billions of years, it is unlikely to be developing in lock step with us. I think technological advancement seems to grow VERY fast (look what we have accomplished in just the last 100 years, which isn’t even a blip on the radar for a universe as purportedly as old as ours is), so it’s likely that any alien race that advanced a million or so years before us would probably already have arrived at our doorstep. We’d know about it (or we’d be dead, assuming they got here and regarded us as the equivalent of ants). Of course, we could be the forerunners, so this argument is the weakest. However, playing the odds again, if you assume a Star Trek like universe filled will lots of different types of life, how likely is it that we are on the leading edge? Or that all of the other races have adopted the Prime Directive (which is a nice idea, but unrealistic to expect that every alien race more advanced than us would adopt it. We never have, as far as I know, when dealing with less advanced life/cultures hear on earth).
Just my idle thoughts. I feel quite at ease with changing them the moment ET (or Superman) shows up and reveals his (or her) existence.
Jeff S wrote:
This is the argument known as the Fermi Paradox in SETI circles.
Continuing. There are (at least) two possible reasons why we haven’t been visited by ETIs. One, they don’t exist as has been mentioned. The second reason would there is no way to circumvent the limitation of travel to less than the speed of light. That is, no “warp drives” or other imaginative constructs allowing instant hopping anywhere in the universe are possible. If this second speculation is true, other technological civilizations could exist but contact other than essentially one way radio communications limited to light speed could not be made.
If the latter is true (certainly it is possible that faster than light travel is not possible), then we are alone in the universe in a practical sense, even if not actual. That is, if aliens do exist but we will never meet them or interact with them, then wether they are there is almost irrelevant except as a point of interest. Yes, I am irritatingly pragmatic at times :p
This argument is similar to the reason I believe time travel is not possible. If it was, we’d know about it because we’d already be experiencing the effects of future visitations.
Hi all
Love this discussion.
Deb’s daughter’s shower went off without a hitch. I get to meet a really awesome person tomorrow that was involved in the Mars Hill pastor firing disaster. I hope to write a post, soon, on just who Mars Hill throws under the bus (if he will let me.) The answer is unbelievable. I am hoping I can tell the story.
Please bear with us this week.
oldJohnJ & Jeff S,
Science fiction has an uncanny way of becoming technological fact. The best illustration of this is probably Jules Verne’s undersea ship driven by a mysterious and dangerous power. Once just the fanciful pen strokes of an imaginative Frenchman, it was willed into hard reality by hard reality men less than a century later.
I think it’s prudent of us all to stop short of saying that practical travel across vast interstellar distances will never happen.
The key to discovery lies not in mathematics, but in imagination.
from Dune: House Corrino by Brian Herbert & Kevin J. Anderson
I just said it is possible that it isn’t possible :). I certainly would not presume to assume that it isn’t. If it is, then it is that much more likely that we are in fact alone (for reasons previously mentioned of not having encountered any yet).
I will point out that the master (IMO) of science function (Asimov) rarely had aliens in his tales of the future. His vision was of a universe explored and colonized by man.
Jeff S,
I hope I didn’t sound like I was saying that you said practical interstellar travel is not possible ever. You’re way too smart to say something as narrow and provincial as that. The Herbert men, Frank the elder and son Brian, had a vision similar to Asimov’s. Colonization of many worlds across vast interstellar distances. Their books are not about technology per se, but rather human politics and the interaction of human institutions.
Muff Potter wrote:
The comments regarding sci-fi are fascinating but let’s try and keep a clear line between science fact and science fiction. A good example of not doing this is the article “Heading Off to the Stars”, National Geographic January 2013 pp 68-81 that describes some schemes for interstellar travel that don’t violate known laws of physics. The thought that any of the described methods could actually be successfully implemented is still science fiction. The engineering details matter.
Physics that would enable Faster Than Light travel isn’t known to us. In fact we can’t answer if such physics even exists. The saga of the FTL neutrinos during the spring of 2012 is evidence of just how eagerly exceptions to the current limitations imposed by physics are pursued. I don’t feel there is an complacency in the physics community about everything significant having been discovered.
The Fermi Paradox is simply a statement that if life is inevitable when the planetary conditions are right and if FTL travel is possible we should have been visited by ETs.
I think a lot of us would like to see our species leave our planet but the science that would provide a technology to do this doesn’t exist even though such science is ardently pursued.
@ oldJohnJ:
Is it possible that our thinking needs to be wholly adjusted? As an outsider-to-physics it has always flummoxed me that for all the talk of relativity, when it comes to actually APPLYING the science, the idea of time and space relativism goes away.
I am doing a post on this very issue. For, me, it is not hard to see that the ACTUAL location of any object is ITSELF. And that any locations of OTHER objects with respect to time and space are relative. So, you are where you are, by definition…therefore, things that are far from you are RELATIVELY far, and things near are RELATIVELY near.
The process then involved in crossing great interstellar distances isn’t so much about traveling the space (the distance), it is about changing the RELATIVE locations of those things that are “far” from you and making them relatively NEAR to you. So, reversing the relative location of OTHER objects with respect to YOU..which, as I said, is the only ACTUAL definition of your location.
I think this might be able to work if somehow we could reduce man (or whatever object we want to “travel” the distance) to his dimensionless root particles–which I submit are infinite, by definition, having no “parts” and thus have no “space” or “time”–and then reconstructing them so that the relative location of the far off object is now relatively near. (Like a Star Trek transporter?)
What do you think?
Muff Potter wrote:
Which was ELECTRICITY. Possibly using anodes and cathodes on the hull to turn the ocean into a massive seawater battery. It’s DISNEY in their Fifties movie version that started the meme of Nautilus as nuke boat.
Too many people think SF “predicts THE future”, especially in the area of science & technology.
Actually, SF presents a myriad of POSSIBLE futures (and possible alternate presents, and possible alternate pasts). Not so much a prediction as an exploration of “What Ifs”.
“Hope: Nothing Up My Sleeve…Presto! ”
huh?
“In Watching 178 episodes of Star Trek TNG, you learn, ‘there is no God…’ ”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092455/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
hmmm…
Could have fooled me.
-snicker-
*
(re-wind)
“Perhaps, in retrospect, there would be little motivation even for malevolent extraterrestrials to attack the Earth; perhaps, after a preliminary survey, they might decide it is more expedient just to be patient for a little while and wait for us to self-destruct.”
― Carl Sagan
“We have met the enemy, and he is us.” ― Pongo
Crunch!
“Live Long And Prosper?”
What?!?
(fast-forward)
Never fear, the scriptures say we have hope…
huh?
God said ta folk in the Old Testament times:
¶ “For I know the plans I have for you, …plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope…”
The Bible Scriptures Give Us Hope :
¶ “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…”
¶ “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”
¶ “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
¶ “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”
¶ “Jesus said to her, ‘Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’ ”
¶ “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
*
Have we become a planet where something resembling the Roman Empire once again endures in the 21th century replete with televised gladiator fights, where the wage slaves fight for economic freedom? Worshipers not of the Son of God, but the system that gives them the prospect of economic hope?
hmmm…
*
C.S. Lewis Quotes on Hoping For Something More:
“Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want, and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to you, but they never quite keep their promise.” – C.S. Lewis
“At present we are on the outside… the wrong side of the door. We discern the freshness and purity of morning, but they do not make us fresh and pure. We cannot mingle with the pleasures we see. But all the pages of the New Testament are rustling with the rumor that it will not always be so. Someday, God willing, we shall get ‘in’… We will put on glory… that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch. We do not want to merely ‘see’ beauty–though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put into words–to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.” – C.S. Lewis
Is there hope of a bright future?
The Bible Scriptures say a resounding, Yes!
Can the Bible Scriptures be believed?
Wait for it.
I do believe in rainbows…
I do, I do, I do…
(grin)
Sopy
—
The Undiscovered Bounty: “Continuing The Theme Of Hope, In Technicolor Celluloid Reality?”
hmmm…
HUG, thank you for your comments above, they are extremely well considered.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Are we quickly arriving at a place where the theme of hope as presented in Bible scriptures, is seen as insufficient, i.e. no longer satisfying the needs of the people?
Streeeeeeeeeetch!
…and they said to Jesus, “where shall we go, you have the words of eternal life…”
The prospect of a blessed hope?
hmmm…
In the end, apparently, we have Man and his ingenuity pitted against Bible scripture and a Holy God.
“Second star to the right and on till morning…” ?
(grin)
ATB
Sopy
—
@ Sopwith: Sopy, no offense but some of us are sci fi fans. Can’t see anything wrong with that, really…
@ Sopwith:
The best science fiction isn’t about hope for the future, but exploring how man responds when you change the assumptions and world around him
@ Sopwith:
Sopwith, I’ve been reading your posts for months and have to say that 75% of the time, I have almost no idea what you are talking about.
The Undiscovered Scriptures: “Hope Deferred Makes The Heart Grow Sick?”
hmmm…
Happy, thank you for your inquiry.
@ HoppyTheToad:
It is an honor that you should read my comments. Thanx!
As for a clarification: HUG said:
“We need brightness on the horizon; we need hope. And when the churches have dropped the ball, we take our hope from others.”
This is so true!
My comments in this post speak of trusting Jesus, and the hope that comes from comes from bible scriptures. The Scriptures are filled with hope, comfort, and healing.
“God delights in those who place their hope in Him, and in Him we find hope that does not disappoint. Wishing and hoping in people and events is not real hope. Hope in God is not based upon circumstances, but absolute faith in Him and His promises.”
From Genesis to Revelations God reveals His unconditional love and concern for us.
As an example, and for further inquiry see the following hope filled scriptures:
Rom 12:12 – “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.”
Psa 146:5 – “Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God.”
Isaiah 40:31 – “But those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.”
Psa 147:11 – “The LORD delights in those who fear him, who put their hope in his unfailing love.”
Rom 15:13: – “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Psa 62:5 – “Find rest, O my soul, in God alone; my hope comes from him.”
Rom 8:24-25 – “In this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.”
Psa 119:74: – “May those who fear you rejoice when they see me, for I have put my hope in your word.”
Prov 13:12: – “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life.”
Psa 25:3: – No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame,…”
Heb 11:1 – “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Psa 33:17: – “A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save.”
Heb 10:23 – “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.”
Psa 42:5: – “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.”
Heb 8:19-20 – “The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope.”
Psa 130:5: – “I wait for the LORD, my soul waits, and in his word I put my hope.”
Heb 6:17-19-20 – “We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek,”
Psa 130:7: – “O Israel, put your hope in the LORD, for with the LORD is unfailing love and with him is full redemption.”
Prov 23:18: – “There is surely a future hope for you, and your hope will not be cut off.”
Lam 3:21: – “Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope.”
Zech 9:12: – “Return to your fortress, O prisoners of hope; even now I announce that I will restore twice as much to you.”
Jer 29:11: – “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Rom 5:2-4 – “Through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.”
Rom 5:5 – “And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”
Rom 15:4 – “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”
Col 1:27 – “To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Thes1:3 – “We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Thes 5:8 – “But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.”
Tit 1:2 – “a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time.”
Heb 6:18 – “…it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.”
Heb 6:11-12 – “We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.”
Hope this helps…
“Faith comes by hearing the word of God.”
Blessings!
ATB
Sopy
—
@ oldJohnJ:
You said…
Assuming for the moment that your statement is an accurate representation of the men’s work that you quoted, I still do not think we are seeing eye to eye…There is nothing which directly supports a supernatural cause, at best it implies a cause currently outside of our ability to test or verify. There is a difference between evidence which does not explicitly prohibit a particular explanation and one which directly supports it.
Trying to derive evidence for the supernatural via the natural requires you to “read-in” something that just isn’t there. An event for which we do not currently have a viable explanation does not, ipso facto, imply supernatural.
KarltonGeorge wrote:
I did not say that that the presented evidence demands a supernatural conclusion, God. The current observational data about the universe allows for God. Yes, further evidence could change this conclusion in either direction.
@ oldJohnJ:
In either direction? What evidence exactly would be required to prove a supernatural influence?
KarltonGeorge wrote:
For there to be a beginning, there must be an uncaused cause at some point. Or put differently (and my guess is you are familiar with this argument) everything that is an effect must have a cause (there is no argument there, as this goes to the very definition of terms). So by logical extension there must have been at one time something that existed that was not an effect, but WAS a cause. Theists belief that something is God. Atheists do not know what it is. At some point, though we are quibbling over terminology.
Certainly the God of Christianity is more than simply an “uncaused cause”, but he is not less than it.
KarltonGeorge wrote:
Well if God showed up and told you, you’d probably be inclined to believe him. Or if you died and were confronted by him, you’d believe it then.
Not saying that is what is what is required to prove a supernatural influence, but it appears to me that you are implying it’s impossible to know if God exists. If, in fact, there is a God and if Christians are right, then everyone will know it with certainty eventually.
I believe we’ve already good grounds for believing in the existence of otherwordly beings here on earth (tough not necessarily as space aliens).
Dr. Jacques Vallee outstanding books persuaded me that a small minority of UFO cases are genuine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e
Regards.
Lothar’s son – Lothars Sohn
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/
Thanks for posting that link, Lothar’s son. Vallée makes some interesting points, especially about some of the sometimes alarming assumptions and beliefs of UFO believers. I think I was trying to allude to that certain type of mindset in an earlier comment.
Re YEC in this debate, I don’t think it is actually that relevant. Neither YEC nor an old universe validate or invalidate the possibility of extraterrestrial life per se either way.
Re Carl Sagan, as I’ve noted before, there is an important different between scientific naturalism (which is how science works, ie looking for the purely mechanistic explanation) and philosophical naturalism (which is an a priori exclusion of the possibility of any supernatural intervention).
Re Gene Roddenberry, I take the point about the sometimes recurring theme of his scripts. I think other people have pointed out that series 3 of the original did regurgitate some previous themes, eg alien lifeform wishes to judge human integrity, yadda yadda. Not that I didn’t enjoy them! Dr Who could suffer a bit from that at times as well. As someone has observed, it’s the insatiably demanding nature of running a television series.
Argo wrote:
I’m an old experimental physicist, not a theorist. I really not equipped to comment on your ideas in the referenced comment.
KarltonGeorge wrote:
I don’t have any idea of what would be better evidence than the previously stated experimental results of a beginning and no end. I’m simply maintaining an open mind on the subject.
@ elastigirl:
Old John J,
I think I addressed most of your questions. I was hoping for more interaction. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts in response to your question,
“Is there more motivation for the exobiology search than simple scientific curiosity?”
My thought trail lead me to understand your question along the lines of,
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth **AND THE UNIVERSE**”
Did I understand you correctly? Or was my brain beginning to turn inside out like a paper cup? Love to hear your thought trail.
@ elastigirl:
Old John J,
I’d love to hear your thoughts in response to your question,
“Does “God’s only Son” limit what we may find?”
This is how I interpreted your question:
Do you mean does “God’s only Son”, become human, having given his life to build the bridge between humanity and God, make intelligent life beyond humans impossible or unlikely?
Or, since Jesus is human whose purpose primarily deals with humans (although I think animals & all earth life forms benefit), does that limit the whole creative ball of wax to humanity & co. on earth?
My thoughts in response are in the linked comment above. Again, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Sight Perception: “The Lion, The Blog, And The Reading List?”
hmmm…
numo wrote:
Hey,
With or without the 65″ Sony K4 “Wide Screen” and 7.1 THX surround sound?
(grin)
When they rolled the first space shuttle out of the hanger, the band played the Star Trek theme…(we all ‘got it’ , Numo)
…In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. It is not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: a twenty-first century hobbit-hole, and that means opulence, comfort, and access to a very large text and video library…
Pass da lime popcorn, please!
Again speculation, theory, experimentation, technology and exploration have their place, wether under the oceans, on the surface of the planet, or be it beyond this marvelous blue-green marble in space.
The tests carried out on the surface of Mars to see if the soil showed any of the biological activity that might be associated with the presence of microscopic lifeforms, was a successful small beginning…
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
~ Doctor Albert Einstein
Blessings!
Sopy
—
@ Sopwith: Hey there – I became a fan of Star Trek when it was a 1st-run TV show. I wasn’t very old, and we had a b&w TV set, but still – I was captivated.
Unfortunately, there were too many revival spin-offs. My fave of all of them is Deep Space Nine, though I liked Next Generation as well.
@ Sopwith: I also liked “time Tunnel” and similar shows, including one (apparently pretty inane) about two guys who got thrown back to the caveman era. That one didn’t last long, iirc.
The only proper way for a YEC fundamentalist to conduct First Contact with and alien species… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
@ elastigirl:
I appreciate your rephrasing of the two discussion questions at the end of the post. Additional insight was the goal of the questions.
I view “God’s only Son” as being very earth centric, seemingly limiting the salvation message, initially, to our planet. The second question is related. My view on this, uncontaminated by any actual observations, is that showing other civilization exist on other planets eliminates the need for God. This isn’t my view but I sense that many in the science community support it and perhaps it is one reason for the wide spread support of SETI.
oldJohnJ wrote:
I did not know that. To me, the existence of other civilizations demonstrates God’s incomparable creativity. So many questions arise. Did Jesus’ sacrifice also include those on other worlds? Did they not fall? Does mankind mean only us on this planter?
If another planet is found to have life, I would love to be around to hear the theological pundits debate the issue.
For me it is simple. There is nothing that can separate me from the love of Christ. So, if He is the constant, the other stuff is merely integrating new knowledge.
@ numo: I am also a fan of the Stargate series.
@ Eric Fry: I absolutely love that clip. I grew up in Salem Massachusetts and it is particularly humorous to me. Some of our detractors have been known to call us the Wartburg Witches which always makes me smile. My high school football team was called the Salem Witches.
@ oldJohnJ:
Yes…I guess I thought that you, being in the field, might have some thoughts on it. But I’m not familiar with the professional scope of certain types of physicists, so I accept that it just isn’t “what you do”. LOL. But thanks. 🙂
But, even theorists seem to appeal to the idea that space and time are actual in their models (but maybe not)…and so, I’m not sure how that squares with what I assume the word “relative” means. Maybe physics just hasn’t gotten there yet? Shrug.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
Also…here is an interesting thought. I was going to run it by OldJohnJ but I’ll put it out there for all y’all.
If time and space were created at the Big Bang, then it would be impossible to assign a “where” and a “when” to that event, right? Therefore, how do you define its beginning? You can’t really say it happened however many billions of years ago, because, by definition there can be no WHEN (and by extension no WHERE) to its “beginning” since time and space didn’t exist until AFTER the big bang. And so, it is impossible to tell ultimately then how old the universe is…indeed, you cannot even say it had a beginning, because something that is absent a time or place cannot be said to have a beginning.
Just a little fodder for the Young Earth crowed, I suppose. (Even though I am NOT young earth…let’s make that clear! 🙂 )
Dee wrote:
The quote is not my POV but what I feel is a large part of the science community outlook.
@ Dee:
Have you read “Out of the Silent Planet” by C.S. Lewis?
I don’t remember much about it (having read it when I was in middle school), but if I recall the themes correctly, it sounds up your alley.
@ oldJohnJ:
“I view “God’s only Son” as being very earth centric, seemingly limiting the salvation message, initially, to our planet.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
Hi, Old John J.
Can you expand on “initially”?
Should ETI exist, I assume you believe God created it. Do you think it’s a logical impossibility for any created intelligent life to be incapable of not sinning?
If you came in contact with and ETI Being on peaceful terms, and there was the opportunity for mutual discovery, at some point the question of religion would come up. I expect this would be something akin to dialoguing with a human being from an isolated civilization (to the millionth power!). The only difference would be is “original sin” relevant. Can you “imagine out” this conversation and what you might ask, what you might share?
I’m LONGING FOR DIALOGUE!!! No one’s engaging my comments and corollary questions! You’re my last hope!
@ Dee:
“If another planet is found to have life, I would love to be around to hear the theological pundits debate the issue.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where certain “theological pundits” are concerned, I can imagine nothing more steamingly satisfying. (smug smile mode here, narrowed eyes & all)
elastigirl wrote:
Even though I am doubtful about eventual interstellar travel I won’t conclude that it can’t happen. “initially” leaves open the possibility, however small, of evangelism being done on other worlds.
I only know how one example of intelligence deals with sin. If an ETI is anything like us I don’t think being sin free is a possibility.
Your imagined dialog with a peaceful ETI is beyond my ability to envision.
elastigirl wrote:
There is something I do not understand. The church was obviously, and painfully, wrong about earthcentricity: both in location in the universe and in the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. It would seem to me that theologians should be a bit more humble when it comes to “pronouncements” about things that we cannot know, unless, of course, you are Ken Ham and then you know. 🙂
Look at the vastness of the universe and all of the things we do no understand. Humility should come to mind as we look out there. I think Ken Ham would probably fall down dead if an ET actually showed up. Well..maybe not.. he would say they are demons.
oldJohnJ wrote:
As an interesting aside, in the 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still, Mr. Klaatu the alien makes scripted reference to an Almighty Spirit in spite of his civilization’s extremely advanced technology. No such reference can even be remotely alluded to in the 2009 remake. We have grown way to sophisticated to have any need of an Almighty Spirit. This paradigm is even more pronounced among academics who consider such a belief to be a quaint anachronism. (and please note that I did not include you, because you made it clear that you hold no such view)
Muff
Loved your comment ans observation.
dee–
does Christian science fiction ever get into whether or not alien A is a product of original sin on their planet and in their species, thus having a sin nature? If so, then did Jesus die for an ETI? Or, did Jesus come to their planet and do a NT thing by bridging the gap in some way that fit their customs?
Or similarly, does Christian science fiction ever get into whether or not alien B incapable of sinning, and if so are they living their species’ / their planet’s version of the proverbial Garden of Eden before the Fall? And therefore there is no death? And they have perfect communion with God?
does Christian science fiction ever get into the alien species’ story of their experience and encounter with I AM? (meaning, their unique experiential counterpart to Abraham, Yahweh, Israel, Logos being born as Jesus, etc.) Assuming God created said alien species and desires relationship with them just like he does with human beings.
could be very fascinating to dream up, if it hasn’t already been done.
@ elastigirl:
You might enjoy the “Firebird” trilogy, which is set in a different universe but still has Christian theology interwoven in it.
http://www.amazon.com/Firebird-A-Trilogy-Tyers-Kathy/dp/0764229273/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1375275768&sr=8-4&keywords=kathy+tyers
@ elastigirl:
Also, there is the aforementioned “Out Of The Silent Planet” by C.S. Lewis; however, that is probably more allegory than an exploration of aliens. In the book, the “silent planet” is earth that has gone evil so other alien races leave it alone. Like I said, I haven’t read it since middle school, so my recollection is fuzzy.
@ Jeff S: Loved Firebird. Out of the Silent Planet actually reflected Lewis’ speculation of life on other planets. The second book, Perelandra, explores a planet which undergoes its own Adam and Eve story and they do not fall. Amazing book, BTW.
After Lewis’s trilogy, my absolute, hands down favorite is The Lamb Amongst the Stars(trilogy) by Chris Walley. There is one of the finest treatments on understanding the subtlety of sin that I have read. It takes place far in the future and deals with the coming of Christ.
@ dee:
Ah, well there you go. Like I said, I haven’t read “Out Of The Silent Planet” in years. Might have to give it another go.
elastigirl wrote:
I like the idea of speculative ixtian sci-fi because I lean toward a What if? God rather than a deity who must adhere to a predetermined blueprint.
With that in mind, what if a race of beings elsewhere did not kill the vineyard owner’s son but rather listened to him and changed their ways?
elastigirl wrote:
Mostly, no. Because the majority of “Christian Science Fiction” is actually “Christian Apocalyptic”, an only vaguely-related genre more akin to near-future technothriller than SF.
Because of the long arm and dead hand of John Nelson Darby and Hal Lindsay, there are four taboo tropes in a lot of Xian SF:
1) NO stories set more than Twenty Minutes into the Future. (Because Christ is coming back any minute now…)
2) NO settings way off-world (because Christ won’t be able to take us in the Rapture; I am NOT making that up…)
3) NO aliens or non-human characters (except for Angels and especially DEMONS…)
4) NO semi-human genetic construct characters (bestiality, plus see (3) above…)
Christian Apocalyptic has signed whatever future they had over to The Antichrist. (Any minute now… any minute now… any minute now…)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Mostly, no. Because the majority of “Christian Science Fiction” is actually “Christian Apocalyptic”, an only vaguely-related genre more akin to near-future technothriller than SF.
Because of the long arm and dead hand of John Nelson Darby and Hal Lindsay…
++++++++++++++++++
what a missed opportunity.
and how disappointing. is there any creative inspiration which Christian culture doesn’t kill??
@ Muff Potter:
yeah! — sounds like a fascinating plot! you like to write?
FWIW, I actually wrote 90% a science fiction book once (but I’ve lost all the work now- I got busy and the computer it was on crashed 🙁 )
It did not have aliens, but it was set WAY in the future with many planets colonized (including terraformed planets).
The basic idea was that there is a central government over 95% of the universe’s population, but that it would allow fringe groups that did not want to adhere to its rules to break off an colonize their own planets with a pledge of non-interference both directions. The conflict arises when someone realizes one of these colonies, found on a religious devotion against technology, is about to be wiped out by a natural disaster.
It wasn’t explicitly Christian. The main character was not a Christian. There WAS a religious evangelist who was arrested for trying to evangelize the colony (which would be against the law) before they found out about the pending natural disaster, and the hero reluctantly has to turn to her for help in dealing with the colony.
Yes, I realize it sounds like something out of Start Trek. Perhaps that’s why I never put the last 10% into it?
It did have a few clever twists though. I wish I’d finished it, or at least still had what I did 🙁
While we’re on the subject of exobiology, I note that a promising and entirely new class of antibiotic has been discovered in microbes found in deep-ocean sediments.
That’s not exobiology, obviously, but it’s often been said that we ken more aboot the dark side of the moon than we dae aboot the deep ocean.
@ Jeff S:
sounds intriguing — so sorry it’s lost. would you ever want to dream it up again? new & improved, like?
and I thought my 28 lost iTunes songs was painful.
@ elastigirl:
Maybe- I think I could do it better now for sure. I’ve just been so focused on music. And I’m a more talented musician than I am writer, IMO.
In Search For ET: “One Percent Light, Ninety-Nine Percent Insanity, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
God Almighty, has patiently spent, what – some six thousand years of biblically recorded history in this massive earthly rescue undertaking, only to be forgotten by proverbial Propellerheads, and Si-Fi fans alike?
What?
Sure.
They call it progress. They call it advancement.
hmmm…
(rewind)
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
~ Dr. Charles Darwin, “On the “Origin” of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 155.
– just say’in…
(fast forward)
Now we ‘worship’ at the altar of ET?
(figures)
“ET,” p-h-o-n-e hooooome ?
(grin)
hahahahahaha
huh?
“…For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever…” ?
hmmm…
Maybe, it is ‘we’ that should “Phone Home”…
(sadface)
Sopy
—
.@ Sopwith:
Believe it or not, for all my liberal posturing, heresy, and borderline apostasy, I have always been and remain to this day a perennial skeptic with regard to the evolutionary paradigm, whether it be the theistic or atheistic variety.
Picture:
Patrick Stewart quote about X-Men film roles 🙂
(Stewart played Professor Charles Xavier in several of the X-men movies. The same role was played by a younger actor, McAvoy, in a prequel)
@ Muff Potter:
Each of us can be a testament to God’s desire to restore what’s broken. Like shattered bits of glass pieced together by unseen hands, we can all became a lens on God’s glorious ability to use the very forces that fracture us to once again make us whole.
Phone home?
I am still amazed that God takes my calls. He is very kind. I am forever grateful.
(wine glass toast goes here)
Bravo Jesus!
(grin)
Sopy
—
When this subject surfaced at Internet Monk some years ago, the absolute best comment went like this:
“There are no ‘aliens’. We are alone. ‘Aliens’ are actually Fallen Ones come to deceive us. No, I am not a conspiracy crackhead.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, your comment is missing a closing double quote. Where it goes determines how to parse what you wrote.
oldJohnJ wrote:
Closing double quote at end of posting.
“There are no ‘aliens’. We are alone. ‘Aliens’ are actually Fallen Ones come to deceive us. No, I am not a conspiracy crackhead.”
That one sparked a lot of head-scratching when it got uploaded.