Just as I recently predicted on this forum, this weekend scientists announced that there is good, solid evidence for life being present on Mars. This evidence is methane gas in the atmosphere. Methane is created by either volcanic action or by the decay of bacteria. There is no volcanic activity on Mars. So the only explanation is that anerobic bacteria exist there.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=505454


This provides significant evidence to the theory of evolution; that comets brought complex carbon molecules to earth (and other planets) during the "bombardment" and seeded life.

The Universe that God created was programmed to produce life in many forms and many places. It is truly a living universe. Which is what we should expect.

Jake

Genesis 001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

There could not be an evening or a morning without the sun and the earth being present.

After the separation of light from darkness the passages of Genesis you mention present a refinement and exposition on the division of light from darkness.

Jake

Jake, this is an honest question and I am not trying to evoke hostility but I have to ask it...Are you a Christian who believes that the Bible is the innerant and infallible word of God?

_________________
Matt M.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol2.htm

_________________
Matt M.

Jake writes Just as I recently predicted on this forum, this weekend scientists announced that there is good, solid evidence for life being present on Mars. This evidence is methane gas in the atmosphere. Methane is created by either volcanic action or by the decay of bacteria. There is no volcanic activity on Mars. So the only explanation is that anerobic bacteria exist there.

Dr Vittorio Formisano, the scientist responsible for the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer which detected the gas said
...it could be evidence of life or volcanic activity... Eventually we shall perhaps be able to identify the source. The source is going to be rather a big issue. It could be either simply volcanic activity, or life of biological origin. I am not stating that there is life now. There is no conclusion yet. In my opinion, it is most likely of volcanic origin, but I need many more observations." [The Times, March 30, 2004]

You may note a certain difference of tone between Jake's convictions and those of Dr Vittoria Formisano.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Philogolos:

According to the article I posted Dr. Vittorio is not the only scientist to detect this gas. And opinions vary. Other articles I read were much more firm in their assertion that there is no volcanic activity on Mars. Moreover as methane gas breaks down in sunlight, any volcanic activity that produced it must have happened in the last 300 years.

But, this raises questions. Do you believe that the rest of the Universe is dead and that earth is the only planet with life? Or, do you believe that God created life on many planets, (which is essentially what I believe) Except I think He used what we would call natural processes-- evolution-- to do this.

Perhaps a more important question would be why would God make a universe that was impotent?

Jake

for the upteenth time. I am a Christian (member of the Religious Society of Friends) that does not believe the Bible is inerrant. This does not detract from it spiritual importance for me at all. But as an historical document, it has flaws.

I believe that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God and through belief in Him our sins are forgiven. But my source of inspiration is the testimony of Jesus Himself, and not the reinterpretations of His testimony spread by Paul. Paul's job was to evangelize the grace of God through Jesus, but he did more than this and revised much of Jesus teachings and testimony. So, I trust only the word of Jesus.

Jake

Jake, you write But, this raises questions. Do you believe that the rest of the Universe is dead and that earth is the only planet with life? Or, do you believe that God created life on many planets, (which is essentially what I believe) Except I think He used what we would call natural processes-- evolution-- to do this.

This is the essence of things. You have a belief system. You believe, but why do you believe? Because you think that life evolved on earth in accordance with Neo-Darwinism, which is atheistic. Either there was a plan or there wasn't. If there was why would it need random mutations and the survival of the fittest, and how would 'random' be random if it was part of a plan? If there was no plan then God had nothing to do with it. You can't have it both ways.

As regards life on other planets; I have no idea, nor do you. What you have is a belief system which is always searching for evidence to support it. Your belief system is based on your perception of probabilities and an inward witness. I have a belief system too. It is based on the inerrant revelation of God's word to human beings as found in the scriptures. As we have found so often, these two views have no meeting place.

This is why this thread has never become a discussion. It is a series of propositional statements versus another set of propositional statements. We continue to talk past each other rather than to each other; we are speaking different languages.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Have you investigated Michael Behe's argument for "Irreducible Complexity" within living organisms?

Also, are you aware that there is literally zero evidence that shows non-living matter will assemble at random into living matter? The most well known experiment attempting to prove that non-living matter will assemble itself into living matter was the Miller-Urey experiment of the 1960's. Here's a fairly good recap of that experiment from Reasons to Believe, a "Day-Age" proponent of Creation. http://www.reasons.org/chapters/spokane/newsletters/200306newsletter.shtml?main#primordial_soup

_________________
Matt M.

Jake states:
"...But my source of inspiration is the testimony of Jesus Himself, and not the reinterpretations of His testimony spread by Paul..."

If the Bible is NOT innerrant, how can you know what the true testimony of Jesus is? If you don't believe Paul, then how can you believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Which Bible do you read and by what authority are you choosing to believe one part of scripture but to disbelieve another part of scripture?

_________________
Matt M.