Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Diego

Was there ever intelligent life on Mars?

Recommended Posts

Question: What do you all think of the possibility that Mars, at one time, may have harboured intelligent life? For many years, men like Percival Lowell and Giovanni Schiaparelli believed that Mars CURRENTLY had intelligent life, and that the Martian Canals they observed on the planet were evidence of this fact. Of course, when NASA finally got to Mars, there were no canals of any sort. So my question is, what were men like Lowell seeing, if not canals?

 

Of course, there was an argument made that one of Lowell's telescopes may have been made in such a manner that he was observing the retina of his own eye, and the blood vessels thereof. I do not accept this argument, as he ALSO saw canals in other telescopes, as did Schiaparelli and other men. Furthermore, these men all reported seeing canals that were straight, and blood vessels are not perfectly straight, by definition.

 

I am currently reading a book titled "Mars and its Canals" by Lowell. He also wrote a book that I have read called simply "Mars". "Mars" was written first, followed by "Mars and its Canals". Alfred Russell Wallace wrote a response to the second book entitled "Is Mars Habitable?", in which he suggested that it was not. Lowell responded with a book called "Mars as the Abode of Life", in which he defended his ideas that Mars was not only habitable, but that it WAS in fact inhabited by an intelligent race of beings.

 

I have all of these books, and am reading them in order of their publishing. Of course, science fiction writers took off with ideas of Mars and canals, and wrote all about intelligent Martians who were piping water from the polar regions to the rest of a desert planet to save a dying a civilization. The John Carter of Mars series by Edgar Rice Burroughs (who also wrote the Tarzan series) goes into some detail on the subject, as do other science fiction books.

 

Naturally, people were curious to see what the first photographs of the Martian surface would look like. In the 1960's, proof seems to have demonstrated the simple fact: there are no canals, either of the irrigation sort (the kind envisioned by Lowell et al.) or of the shipping sort (the kind with which most of us are familiar, such as the Erie, the Suez, and the Panama). 

 

So were there EVER canals on the surface of Mars, whether in the 19th Century or at any other time? WHAT DID THESE MEN SEE? Any guesses, anyone? Any ideas? It should be noted that "Mars" was written in the 1890's, "Mars and its Canals" in the first decade of the 20th Century, "Is Mars Habitable?" also in that decade, and "Mars as the Abode of Life" in about 1912 or so.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about the canals and all that. But it would seem to me that earth is the only planet where God created life, and Scriputure only tells us that God put life on earth. I don't see why there could have been life on mars since there isn't any now, unless something changed the conditions on mars causing the extinction of life there.

 

Share this post


Link to post

If one takes the opinion there was life an any other place other than Earth, then the Bible is wrong in Genisis, making the rest of the Bible untrustworthy.

 

There never was life except on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
27 minutes ago, Just Mike said:

If one takes the opinion there was life an any other place other than Earth, then the Bible is wrong in Genisis, making the rest of the Bible untrustworthy.

 

There never was life except on Earth.

I dont see how life on other planets would make the bible untrustworthy. In Genesis 1:1 if we were to take the verse chronologically, the heavens were made before the earth. What constitutes the heavens? And why would the emphasis on the earth suggest no life elsewhere?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post

Knowing how DNA works I doubt there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  Plus, SETI has been searching for intelligent life for decades and have found none.  I think the universe is the size it is to show the power of the Lord.

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 minute ago, CDF47 said:

Knowing how DNA works I doubt there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  Plus, SETI has been searching for intelligent life for decades and have found none.  I think the universe is the size it is to show the power of the Lord.

What makes you believe all life has DNA or that all the universe follows the same laws?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, William said:

What makes you believe all life has DNA or that all the universe follows the same laws?

DNA is the code which drives living cells in living systems.  I believe all living systems would require DNA genetic code to function.  It's known as the language of life.  


Based on scientific observation and based on the best we know today, the universe follows the same laws everywhere.  

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Plus, SETI has been searching for intelligent life for decades and have found none.

 

1. I wonder how much was spent and is still being spent searching for this "life."

2. I believe there is other life beyond planet earth. This would include God and other supernal beings.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Just now, CDF47 said:

DNA is the code which drives living cells in living systems.  I believe all living systems would require DNA genetic code to function.  It's known as the language of life.  


Based on scientific observation and based on the best we know today, the universe follows the same laws everywhere.  

And what about the spiritual realms? If what you say is true then not even a soul exists. By the same scientific method it rules out or require science to discover an invisible man, wouldn't it? No invisible man has ever been discovered in the human body, therefore the soul doesn't exists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Faber said:

 

1. I wonder how much was spent and is still being sent searching for this "life."

2. I believe there is other life beyond planet earth. This would include God and other supernal beings.

God is everywhere in this universe I believe.  I believe heaven is outside the bounds of this universe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, William said:

And what about the spiritual realms? If what you say is true then not even a soul exists. By the same scientific method it rules out or require science to discover an invisible man, wouldn't it? No invisible man has ever been discovered in the human body, therefore the soul doesn't exists.

I believe the spiritual realms exist in another dimension intertwined with this universe.  I believe souls exist as the breath of life the Lord breathes into humans as stated in Scripture.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
3 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I believe the spiritual realms exist in another dimension intertwined with this universe.  I believe souls exist as the breath of life the Lord breathes into humans as stated in Scripture.  

Doesn't matter what you believe, there is no scientific evidence. One thing is apparent, you try to harmonize science and scripture. What evidence is there of life or a spiritual realm existing in the universe. If you point outside the universe then why not a muti-verse?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, William said:

Doesn't matter what you believe, there is no scientific evidence. One thing is apprent, you try to harmonize science and scripture. Why not now?

I believe Scripture is only 10 percent supernatural and is 90 percent natural.  Science has not proven everything yet but it has proven a Creator exists as shown in DNA, molecular machines, and the super-symmetrical fine-tuned universe.  I believe science and scripture are in harmony.  The Lord does not appear to be the type of designer that would do things in a different way.  He has given us science to show how His design functions.

 

I believe the multi-verse is just an attempt by atheist scientists to disprove God due to the fact that there was a Big Bang and a fine-tuned universe they are confronted with.  There is no evidence for it.

Edited by CDF47
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
4 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I believe Scripture is only 10 percent supernatural and is 90 percent natural.  Science has not proven everything yet but it has proven a Creator exists as shown in DNA, molecular machines, and the super-symmetrical fine-tuned universe.  I believe science and scripture are in harmony.  The Lord does not appear to be the type of designer that would do things in a different way.  He has given us science to show how His design functions.

I think you are mistaking science with nature. Science is the interpretation of nature. Do you believe theologians are often wrong when interpreting scripture? Why not scientists when interpreting nature?

  • Best Answer 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, William said:

I think you are mistaking science with nature. Science is the interpretation of nature. 

I agree with that.  

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, William said:

I think you are mistaking science with nature. Science is the interpretation of nature. Do you believe theologians are often wrong when interpreting scripture? Why not scientists when interpreting nature?

I don't think scientists are perfect but they have solid methods and dig really deep in interpretation of nature.  Many theories are dis-proven but laws of the universe are the same everywhere.  

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
10 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

I don't think scientists are perfect but they have solid methods and dig really deep in interpretation of nature.  Many theories are dis-proven but laws of the universe are the same everywhere.  

You are making a lot of assumptions. Have scientist observed the entire universe? Even light has been observed to travel 300x faster under certain manipulated conditions than light under the same natural conditions in our observable universe. If light itself is not a constant then why would we assume that other laws are a constant? I refer to an experiment when light was shot into an extremely cold gas contained in a tube. The light appeared to exit before it entered the tube. If light can travel at different rates what makes us believe the observable universe is even observable as we perceive it?

  • Like 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, William said:

You are making a lot of assumptions. Have scientist observed the entire universe? Even light has been observed to travel 300x faster under certain manipulated conditions than light under the same natural conditions in our observable universe. If light itself is not a constant then why would we assume that other laws are a constant? I refer to a to an experiment when light was shot into an extremely cold gas contained in a tube. The light appeared to exit before it entered the tube. If light can travel at different rates what makes us believe the observable universe is even observable as we perceive it?

I know there are many things we do not know, especially when things get really weird at the quantum scales, where electrons are particles when measured and waves when un-measured.  I am just talking in general based on what we know about the universe right now (based on the laws and well established theories), I believe God is allowing us to see how His design works.  I don't think He is trying to fool us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

This verse tells me there is not was not  God created life on other planets. My simple way of understanding. The "laws of nature" is a term used by the world to detract from the planet being God's creation.  

 

Rom 6:9  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 
Rom 6:10  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 
 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Becky said:

This verse tells me there is not was not be God created life on other planets. My simple way of understanding. The "laws of nature" is a term used by the world to detract from the planet being God's creation.  

 

Rom 6:9  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 
Rom 6:10  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 
 

That's right.  Christ died once unto sin.  I do not believe there are any other sinful aliens in the universe nor is there any evidence of them.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/15/2018 at 1:35 PM, CDF47 said:

I don't think scientists are perfect but they have solid methods and dig really deep in interpretation of nature.

Scientists have solid methods but they might not always apply them if doing to brings results that conflict with their beliefs.  Many scientists believe that everything that is going on now in the universe has always been happening.  Anyone who believes this will reject any evidence that shows that the earth was created recently and he will have to believe that the earth is millions of years old.

 

On 9/15/2018 at 1:46 PM, William said:

I refer to an experiment when light was shot into an extremely cold gas contained in a tube. The light appeared to exit before it entered the tube.

What is the source of your information about this experiment?  I would like to learn more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, theophilus said:

Scientists have solid methods but they might not always apply them if doing to brings results that conflict with their beliefs.  Many scientists believe that everything that is going on now in the universe has always been happening.  Anyone who believes this will reject any evidence that shows that the earth was created recently and he will have to believe that the earth is millions of years old.

 

What is the source of your information about this experiment?  I would like to learn more about it.

I agree that there beliefs could conflict with results but I think in most cases that is not the case.  I believe they have enough data about an old universe and an old earth.  This doesn't conflict with Scripture.  Scripture does not state the age of the earth and the genealogies listed may only be hitting the highlights.

 

I am interested in that experiment as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
7 hours ago, theophilus said:

What is the source of your information about this experiment?  I would like to learn more about it.

It was an old experiment around 18 years ago that I remembered but a quick search showed up an article on it:

 

WWW.CBSNEWS.COM

Scientists Say They've Broken Universe's Speed Limit

 

Basically, if I remember the implications of this experiment light travels 186,000 miles a second in our atmosphere or medium. If a vacuum is considered another medium then light "appears" to speed up in that medium. I haven't read where people think these implications had jeopardized Einstein's theory of relativity, because as I understand it light is an "absolute" constant and can only travel as fast as light, the experiment just means light can appear to travel at different rates depending on the medium light is traveling through.

 

However, as someone that is not a Scientist my question is whether these experimental mediums or other unknown mediums could exists in the universe? If so, could the rate of expansion be relative to a law (speed of light) which gives the appearance of different rates, time, and age?

 

Regarding the recent popularity and push (Hawkings) of the multi-verse "hypothesis" wasn't it the law of thermodynamics which literally put an end to it some decades ago? Besides the lack of evidence of other universes existing what makes anyone believe that if they existed the same laws would apply there as here? Seems to me that the assumptions made from Micro to Macro Evolution is rearing here also. To complicate matters even more, I don't see how it can be said with utmost confidence that even in this universe that our observable laws apply to everywhere at anytime in the universe. The same suggestions that claim we have covered only a minute space in the universe when searching for habitable planets would suggest that we have only observed a very minute space and time in the universe from which our theories apply. I imagine that for science to be science it most follow the scientific method and it could only suggest what is indeed observable, testable and repeatable. So then, wouldn't that rule out the multi-verse? And if not wouldn't that rule out the laws of thermodynamics? Would that, if so, suggest what I am speculating and the consequences for science would be that we have no idea about most of how the universe works if the laws of thermodynamics are wrong? Thus I am questioning how much of the universe is even perceivable.

 

Mind you, scientific history over time demonstrates one scientific paradigm has been replaced for another. What I am getting at is if the possibility exists it doesn't mean that past theories and derived laws were incapable of accurate application, but as our knowledge and range of observation into the unknown grew so did the evidence that past theory (Newtonian) was not adequate everywhere, and thus Einstien's theory of relativity shined a new light deepening our knowledge and understanding of an observable range moving forward in the universe. I'm just asking, could that same theoretical "wall" exists if not now but also in the future? If one says, no, then I point to man's presuppositions and arrogance and fault science or scientist with an observable flaw which does not explore all possibilities. And if these apparent flaws on this end of the telescope can't be rectified I can't put much "faith" in the narrative of that end of the telescope's evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
2 hours ago, CDF47 said:

I agree that there beliefs could conflict with results but I think in most cases that is not the case.

So you disagree with Romans 1, and don't believe that a person's presuppositions has much bearing on how they interpret evidence?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...