# Ken Ham calls to end space program because, "aliens are going to Hell anyway"



## Joose (Jul 21, 2014)

Creationist Ken Ham calls to end space program because aliens are going to hell anyway

Really? _*REALLY?*_


----------



## Necris (Jul 21, 2014)

Yeah, really. It's Ken Ham, expecting anything less would be silly.


----------



## Noxon (Jul 21, 2014)

Ever seen Bill Maher rip Ken Ham a new one?

The two best points made in Bill Maher's atheist documentary film 'Religulous' - YouTube


----------



## Overtone (Jul 21, 2014)

But what of the Klingons who _want_ Christ? DEMAND him even...


----------



## dedsouth333 (Jul 21, 2014)




----------



## asher (Jul 21, 2014)




----------



## crg123 (Jul 21, 2014)

Noxon said:


> Ever seen Bill Maher rip Ken Ham a new one?
> 
> The two best points made in Bill Maher's atheist documentary film 'Religulous' - YouTube



lol part of this video is so appropriate for the topic @1:20 seconds


This guy was my favorite part of that whole documentary 

"Scriptures are not teaching science. It is very hard for me to accept not just a literal interpretation of scripture but a fundamentalist approach to religious belief. It is kind of a plague. It presents itself as science and it's not." - Father George Coyne, PHD, Vatican Observatory


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 21, 2014)

If only I had no ethics I could start making ridiculous absurd claims and link to my band page for a record number of views/listens. People would say, "Wow, this guy is an f'ing loon... but man he makes great music... how's this possible?"

Joking aside, why are people of such low intellect and such little use to society getting so much press? This is is tantamount to the Kardashian's having a TV show and being in the media every single damn day. I know we all like a laugh, but this right here isn't funny, it's outright sad. 

Ya know... today I saw a news article where NASA made a 3D image of the Apollo 11 landing sight using data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. You can clearly see the landing site in the photo they used but boy oh boy... scroll down to the comments and what do you get? Just as I expected 100% - a bunch of moon landing hoax morons posting about how the landing was faked.

In the words of Ron White - "You can't fix stupid".


Rev.


----------



## Daf57 (Jul 22, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> but boy oh boy... scroll down to the comments and what do you get?
> Rev.



*Never read the comments!* It's trap, sure it seems like a good idea to interact and share views on the topic but ... it's a trap. You will be sucked into the quicksand of internet slime, spam directs and stupidity. Your whole day can be ruined by the knowledge that those people exist and live below the Comments belt. Never fails! Never read the comments!


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Jul 22, 2014)

I doubt that even The Onion could conjure up such a ridiculous article. Amazing....


----------



## Joose (Jul 22, 2014)

Necris said:


> Yeah, really. It's Ken Ham, expecting anything less would be silly.



I agree. I could make a thread every day with his ridiculous crap. But, this one actually caught me off guard. One of those that I had to do a quadruple-take on. I even got on Google and did multiple searches just to make sure this wasn't fake; but as SilenceIsACrime stated, not even The Onion could come up with something so absurd.


----------



## groverj3 (Jul 22, 2014)

Aussies, please take this guy back. We don't want him here. There are enough religious crazies here...


----------



## SD83 (Jul 22, 2014)

Joose said:


> Creationist


/thread. Those people belong into an asylum, on the same floor as those ISIS dumbasses.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 22, 2014)

You have to remember that even modern astronomy is a problem for some fundamentalist Christians. Satellites are bad because they assume a round earth, casting doubt on Scripture. 

If it contradicts Scripture, wipe it out. That's my take-away from anything Ken says....

----

By the way, what happened to Ken's challenge to Pat Robertson when Robertson said Ken was making Christians look stupid? I'm still waiting for that Creationism debate.


----------



## Shimme (Jul 30, 2014)

It's very rare for me to laugh at stuff on the internet, but you've managed to make me laugh my head off so hard I had tears in my eyes.



Oh shit someone actually believes this.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

Here's the Creationist Wars stuff.

Pat Robertson implores creationist Ken Ham to shut up: &#8216;Let&#8217;s not make a joke of ourselves&#8217;

Pat Robertson on Creation Debate: &#8216;Nonsense&#8217; to Think Earth Is Only 6,000 Years Old | Mediaite

Ken Ham Fires Back at Pat Robertson: &#8216;Really Sad&#8217; He&#8217;s &#8216;So Misinformed&#8217; About Creationism | Mediaite

I learned in college to get the folks who would witness in front of the library to argue Scriptural interpretations with each other. They just could not let things go when another Christian was in error (in their opinions), and it was amusing for those of us who would watch. 

And that's the really wild thing about the whole "Science is wrong because the Bible!" assertion... there's not one consistent interpretation of what the Bible says. Once you get that debate rolling, it stops being about Scripture being used to fend off non-believers, but about believers slinging the arrows back and forth, with everyone else thinking, "Wait! Science works objectively, and these clowns want to replace it when they can't agree on the most important part of their argument? Sheesh!"


----------



## Ricky Roro (Jul 31, 2014)

SD83 said:


> /thread. Those people belong into an asylum, on the same floor as those ISIS dumbasses.



I believe that God created the universe, so that makes me comparable to the scum of the earth who slaughter children without remorse. That makes sense. 

Try reading the actual article.
"We'll find a new earth within 20 years" | Around the World with Ken Ham

He never said anything about aliens going to Hell; the point is that it would be difficult to reconcile the existence of other intelligent beings due to the Biblical model of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. He also never suggested shutting down NASA, but rather that the search for intelligent life will most likely be fruitless. Abiogenesis is not supported by rigorous scientific studies.

As for astronomy, the Bible supports a round earth; furthermore, the most recent developments in origin studies have found evidence supporting that the universe rapidly expanded--faster than the speed of light--right after the 'big bang;' i.e. it looks like things got everywhere all at once. 
These are not points of argument but rather merely a response to refute the blind assumptions made that there can be no intelligent creation theories which are in any way consistent with reality. 

Bullying is neither 'scientific' nor intelligent. Slander gets media attention because it is cheap, easy, and scratches the itch of resentful atheists who badly want the God of the Bible to be mocked.

So no, not really.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2014)

Ken Ham is full of BS irrelevant to his beliefs or lack there of; he really doesn't need defending (nor would the bible if it were in fact infallible for that matter). Just because a fellow Christian is under attack doesn't mean every Christian needs to defend said individual really either. That's probably my biggest gripe with religion (at least for the moment ). Most religious folk will defend, if even only slightly, anyone of their same faith for fear that not doing so will make the whole of their faith look bad. Bad people exist in all walks of life, they don't need defending just because they share something in common with you. That sets an awful precedent.

The majority of the US is religious if we are to believe the census and polls. Are we really implying that the majority hold of opinion in this country are being bullied? Furthermore, if most of the US is supposedly religious it wouldn't be beneficial at all for the media to 'slander' religion would it, since that 'insults' a rather large demographic.


----------



## Ricky Roro (Jul 31, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Just because a fellow Christian is under attack doesn't mean every Christian needs to defend said individual really either.



This is a forum. I shared what I thought was a viewpoint relevant to the topic.

Besides that, what else can you call it when someone's words are pulled out of context and misquoted for the sake of mocking them? Even if it is not bullying it is childish, or at the very least poor reporting. 
Give someone a fair evaluation before concluding that they are ridiculous even if you think that they are a loon. I understand that many people think Ken Ham is crazy and wrong to begin with, but it seems most conducive to civility to attempt to clear misconceptions. 
It would be a more honest evaluation to consider him a loon for his defense of a Creationist perspective than to call him a loon for discussing Hell-bound aliens.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

You had the link, the same article I read, but you apparently found that Ken Ham didn't say anything with implications about aliens being destined for hell? 

Here's the link again:

â&#8364;&#339;Weâ&#8364;&#8482;ll find a new earth within 20 yearsâ&#8364; | Around the World with Ken Ham

Here's the relevant part.



> You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam&#8217;s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam&#8217;s sin, but because they are not Adam&#8217;s descendants, they can&#8217;t have salvation. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God&#8217;s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the &#8220;Godman,&#8221; to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin&#8212;the Savior of mankind.
> 
> Jesus did not become the &#8220;GodKlingon&#8221; or the &#8220;GodMartian&#8221;! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God&#8217;s Son remains the &#8220;Godman&#8221; as our Savior. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word). To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong.
> 
> An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race&#8212;human beings who are all descendants of Adam.


Now, although some don't understand how a logical argument works, here's the one for which you're claiming the conclusion is false. I'm not saying that Ham is correct, only stating his various premises and following that logic:

1. The Fall, in the Garden of Eden, put Original Sin on everyone. 



> You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam&#8217;s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam&#8217;s sin


2. There is a heaven for those who are saved, and a hell for those who aren't.

Search of Ham's website "Answers in Genesis," where Ham writes extensively about the existence of heaven and hell

3. The day of judgment will come for everyone.



> One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire


4. You can only be saved through Jesus Christ.

*This one can't be argued against when working withing the fundamentalist Christian framework. I don't think you're doing that, so I'll skip the documentation for now. *However, Ham does talk about Jesus as the Savior.


> God&#8217;s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the &#8220;Godman,&#8221; to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin&#8212;the Savior of mankind.


5. Jesus will not give salvation to aliens, only human beings.


> An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race&#8212;human beings who are all descendants of Adam.





> Jesus did not become the &#8220;GodKlingon&#8221; or the &#8220;GodMartian&#8221;! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God&#8217;s Son remains the &#8220;Godman&#8221; as our Savior. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word). To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong.
> 
> An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race&#8212;human beings who are all descendants of Adam.


*Conclusion: Therefore, aliens are going to hell.*


Ricky Roro said:


> So no, not really.


Yes, really.

Now, if you want to say that Ken Ham isn't saying that any possible intelligent aliens are going to hell, you have to show where the logic is wrong. I was careful to only use Ken's premises, and I think that he built a wonderful premise-conclusion argument. The problem is, he's now denying that the logic is valid. 

Dude, it sounds like both you and Ham are upset because most people can easily follow his argument, and most people aren't dissuaded by "Oh, no, I mean all those things, but you're not allowed to draw a conclusion from my premises which make me look foolish. Those who aren't saved will go to hell, and aliens can't be saved, but I don't believe that any possible aliens are going to hell because... Hey, is that Elvis?! Look, everybody!" (Ham dashes out a back door.) *laugh*

I'll respond to your other point in a second post, so you can focus on whichever you prefer.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> the most recent developments in *origin studies*



I'm struck by your use of the term "origin studies," which isn't part of any scientific field I know about. There's biology, physics, astronomy, and so on. "Origin studies" is normally used by fundamentalist Christians, in order to lump together the things they feel impinge on matters of their holy writings and dobma. Is that the context from which you're using it? 



Ricky Roro said:


> Abiogenesis is not supported by rigorous scientific studies.



Actually, there has been lots of research on possible models for abiogenesis. Like astronomy working its way towards the non-Scriptural heliocentrism, the theories and research go towards finding knowledge. And, most importantly, the research continues, something which many fundamentalists feel is unnecessary because "God did it, so we don't need to look at that stuff." 



Ricky Roro said:


> As for astronomy, the Bible supports a round earth....



Does it? The International Flat Earth Research Society existed as a pro-Scripture, anti-spherical group for quite a few years. It declined after the death of Charles K. Johnson in 2001, which is extremely recently, and was pretty soundly based on Scriptural references. It's an entirely modern argument to redefine a word in Scripture which means "circle" in Hebrew (and which in every case where there is a Greek version, is also "circle") to now mean "sphere." In other words, the writers of the Bible had it wrong, and the people who mis-translate in the modern day have it right. 

Any belief that Christians have or had in a spherical earth came from other sources and evidence, not from the Bible.



Ricky Roro said:


> These are not points of argument but rather merely a response to refute the blind assumptions made that there can be no intelligent creation theories which are in any way consistent with reality.



Now this is a place where there hasn't really been any sustained research, a creation theory which is testable. I'm not aware of any rigorous work on this, only work to disprove evolution, arguments from ignorance and an assertion of a god in the places where you don't know the answers yet. 

Interesting slip-up, incidentally. Creationism is a religious point of view, and has been tossed out of science classrooms because it's religion. Most people who want to sneak creationism into classrooms have to deny their Creator at least once before the cock crows, and instead they call it "Intelligent Design," positing a huge unexplained designer, with no explanation for the designer's existence, in order to explain how life came about. Where did that designer come from? What abilities did it have? How do you prove such a designer exists? The failure to be able to address these questions is why creationism, even if you call it ID, isn't science. 

Yes, I absolutely feel that if you refuse to follow the evidence, wherever it leads, you are not doing science. 

I don't want to mock the god of the Yahwists (Jews, Christians, Muslims). I just think that if he really inspired the Bible to be inerrant, he got it wrong. Hence, for example, the two contradictory Nativity stories.

And you can't base good science on a source which has it wrong. You discard the errors and find correct answers upon which to build more questions. That's the difference between science and dogma.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

One last thing:

I was looking for information on the Flat Earth Research Society, and I stumbled onto another group which is threatened by modern astronomy, the 4th Day Alliance. 



> We are in the midst of a major culture war and we need your help! As you know, one of the foundations upon which great negative change has taken place in our world is the false belief in evolution (*naturalism*).
> 
> While most people are familiar with Charles Darwin&#8217;s theory, few realize that an even greater fight is being waged in the area of astronomy. This is because evolution, as it pertains to astronomy, doesn&#8217;t just deal with the origin of life, but with the origin of EVERYTHING! If belief in evolution is defeated in the area of cosmology and astronomy, then other forms of evolutionary belief don&#8217;t have a leg to stand on. This is why evolutionary astronomers are some of the most dogmatic philosophers in existence today. Their ENTIRE WORLDVIEW rests on the foundation of evolutionary cosmology and astronomy. This is why evolutionists oftentimes feel most threatened by Creation Astronomy and wage the most virulent attacks against Creation Astronomers.


Besides their inaccurate definition of "naturalism," they also oppose any evidence which doesn't support their pre-existing beliefs, as stated in the agreement you sign before you can get their fabulous "Start a Chapter" kit to start shutting down free inquiry.


> Please do not post content on the website that is doctrinally divisive or controversial (there are other forums available for that&#8212;this is an astronomy website).
> Please do not post content that supports or promotes an old-earth/universe viewpoint.
> Please do not post content that is contrary to any of the 5 points in our articles of faith.


That's not an astronomy website, incidentally. It's a religious website which is wrapping itself in a sheepskin of scientism. 

You feel that there is a perception of fundamentalists Christians as being anti-science, unable to do serious research because they are dedicated to preserving their faith, not to actually doing science. 

There *are* people of faith who do real science, but that science is based on naturalism, and it is in pursuit of knowledge, wherever the evidence leads. It's not called Christian science because it's objective no matter what your faith system. It's just science.

At the point you rule out areas of inquiry because it's not Scriptural, you're doing religion and not science. 

And it's the obviousness of that foolish behavior which people easily see, even if you object to people seeing that the Emperor has no clothes. 

Cheers!


----------



## Necris (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> "We'll find a new earth within 20 years" | Around the World with Ken Ham
> 
> He never said anything about aliens going to Hell...





Ken Ham said:


> An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race&#8212;human beings who are all descendants of Adam.


In other words, Aliens are going to hell.



Ricky Roro said:


> ...the point is that* it would be difficult to reconcile the existence of other intelligent beings due to the Biblical model of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation.*


 For example someone like Ken Ham would have to grapple with how a loving god could create beings only to doom them either to endless torment or annihilation without any possibility for redemption. Animals on planet earth fit that description but ignoring them the problem would raise it's ugly head again. 


But without going too off track in other words a more accurate description of his viewpoint is, "The space program must be stopped because the discovery of alien life will directly contradict scripture, but also it should be stopped because it's pointless since according to scripture we won't find aliens, but if we do the aliens are going to hell anyway because the bible says so*, but we won't because the bible says so and therefore we should stop spending all of this money and look instead to the book of truth that is the bible for our answers."

*The bible which will have been proven not to be inerrant since it was just directly contradicted by reality. 

Explain how that is a more logical, reasonable standpoint. It's a mess by any measure.

His standpoint comes from a need to preserve the inerrancy of scripture. Scientific inquiry is a threat to his worldview which is based in a literal interpretation of the bible justified by a belief in the inerrancy of scripture. If science can show that reality directly contradicts scripture his worldview falls apart. In reality this has already happened but he hangs on to his views tenaciously despite them, but that seems to be common in creationists.

His argument relies on circular logic to prop itself up, as many creationist and biblical literalist arguments do (using the bible to prove the bible for example). Allow me to try to illustrate how much of a mess it is.



 The bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore the bible is true, the Bible is true because it is the inerrant word of god.
 The bible is the inerrant word of god which states that we will not find alien life, as such the search is pointless because the discovery of alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god.
 The Bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore we won't find alien life because the bible is inerrant word of god and discovery alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god, the bible cannot be contradicted for it is the inerrant word of god as such search is pointless because the discovery of alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god.
 The Bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore we won't find alien life because the bible is true and discovery alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god, hypothetically if alien life were discovered said aliens would be doomed to hell because the bible states that salvation is only for the descendents of the biblical Adam and the bible is the inerrant word of god, however aliens cannot exist because alien life would contradict the bible which is the inerrant word of god therefore the search for alien life is pointless because...
 
etc etc etc


----------



## Xaios (Jul 31, 2014)

What about the Gelgamek Catholics?







The thing that Ken Ham forgets is that, even if he was correct (which I certainly hope he's not) and there is no other life in the universe, the mission of space exploration would still be a worthy goal. Imagine if humans could colonize other worlds and take advantage of the vast mineral and energy wealth of the universe. That sounds great to me.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Does it? The International Flat Earth Research Society existed as a pro-Scripture, anti-spherical group for quite a few years. It declined after the death of Charles K. Johnson in 2001, which is extremely recently, and was pretty soundly based on Scriptural references. It's an entirely modern argument to redefine a word in Scripture which means "circle" in Hebrew (and which in every case where there is a Greek version, is also "circle") to now mean "sphere." In other words, the writers of the Bible had it wrong, and the people who mis-translate in the modern day have it right.
> 
> Any belief that Christians have or had in a spherical earth came from other sources and evidence, not from the Bible.



Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell."

What is a "circle" from any direction you look at it? A sphere. The Bible is accurate. The church made up the flat earth thing.

Job 26:7 &#8239;"He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing."

As for this guy's idea that intelligent alien creation (if it existed) are affected by Adam's sin, that's silly. Romans 5:12 says "That is why, just as through one _*man *_sin entered into _*the world *_[not the whole universe] and death through sin, and so death spread to _*all men*_ [not aliens - they are not genetically related to Adam]." And going into other unrelated concepts... "Hell" is sorely misunderstood by many Christians. It's not a place of eternal torment, it's just a word for the common grave of humankind. Jesus was in "Hell" for 3 days before his resurrection. Why would God torture his son for 3 days when he never did anything wrong? 

Job actually prayed for God to let him die and go to Hell or "Sheol" (the Hebrew word equivalent) because he knew it was just like sleeping. 

Job 14:13 O that in Sheol you would conceal me, that you would keep me secret... That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!&#8239;If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?...&#8239;You will call, and I myself shall answer you. For the work of your hands you will have a yearning." Job hoped to sleep until God resurrected him to the earth to a new life. That is what the ancient believers in the God of the Bible believed - not that they'd die and go to heaven, or die and suffer for all eternity.

By the way, I'm not interested in preaching here guys. I just have to say what I have to say when extremely anti-Bible things come up, and if I don't speak up, I might be lumped in with idiots who don't know why they believe what they do. So.. for my own peace of mind I think I'll just stop looking at this subforum, or you could all stop posting stuff for me to have to reply to, to clear up misconceptions.


----------



## Varcolac (Jul 31, 2014)

Xaios said:


> What about the Gelgamek Catholics?



If I remember correctly, the Catholic Church's head of Astronomy (yep, they actually have one, Catholics just love that science stuff) said something along the lines of "saying there's no aliens is underestimating God" and then speculated that there might be aliens who had never fallen from God's grace like Adam's folk, and might thus be free from original sin.

But of course, I'm sure Ken Ham is that kind of evangelical nutbar that probably regards the Catholic Church as a Satanic Masonic Zionist conspiracy, so such speculations are not likely to trouble him.


----------



## asher (Jul 31, 2014)

ilyti said:


> Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell."
> 
> What is a "circle" from any direction you look at it? A sphere. The Bible is accurate. The church made up the flat earth thing.



I have no idea where in that quote you're finding reference to "a circle from any direction you look at it" and the tent analogy makes much less sense about a sphere than a circle. If you're saying it's because God looks at the earth from above and sees a circle: that's why they're calling it a circle in the first place.

I don't have any particular stake in this but that evidence is not particularly convincing.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 31, 2014)

That's up to you, and on its own, I wouldn't be convinced either. Obviously nobody knew for sure if the earth was round until someone travelled all the way around it, and then astronauts saw it from space. But those verses are of interest, because it SUPPORTS what science has PROVEN. 

I only believe the whole Bible because I have read it several times and have done extensive research using secular sources to prove to myself what I believe. I don't expect you to just believe because I say so or because I "cherry pick" a few verses to make my point. Faith is based on KNOWLEDGE. Faith is not just "believing what you know ain't so." That's unfortunately what most people think faith is.

Edit: Also that thing about the fine gauze and the tent.. the nearest I can figure is, that's talking about the expansion of the universe. Again, that's of interest to ME because science has proven that the universe is expanding, and in poetic language, the Bible refers to it. But don't take my word for it. It's unrelated from the other thing about the shape of the earth anyway.


----------



## asher (Jul 31, 2014)

ilyti said:


> That's up to you, and on its own, I wouldn't be convinced either. Obviously nobody knew for sure if the earth was round until someone travelled all the way around it, and then astronauts saw it from space. But those verses are of interest, because it SUPPORTS what science has PROVEN.
> 
> I only believe the whole Bible because I have read it several times and have done extensive research using secular sources to prove to myself what I believe. I don't expect you to just believe because I say so or because I "cherry pick" a few verses to make my point. Faith is based on KNOWLEDGE. Faith is not just "believing what you know ain't so." That's unfortunately what most people think faith is.



When I read it the first couple of times I was getting the impression you were saying "hey, look, the Bible actually says the earth is round" in which case it doesn't hold at all. "The Bible isn't contradicted by spherical earth" is what I'm guessing what you mean, but isn't really how your phased it.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 31, 2014)

Sorry, yeah. The Bible is not meant to be a science textbook, but when it has touched on scientific matters, it's accurate. And by the way, if your next thought is to debate about the 6 "days" of creation, I don't believe that these were literal 24 hour "days" 6000 years ago. Science proves THAT idea wrong. But the order in which certain kinds of life appeared is definitely in the correct order as to how it actually happened.


----------



## Ricky Roro (Jul 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> 1. The Fall, in the Garden of Eden, put Original Sin on everyone.
> 2. There is a heaven for those who are saved, and a hell for those who aren't.
> 3. The day of judgment will come for everyone.
> 4. You can only be saved through Jesus Christ.
> ...



Wrong conclusion. The point of the article is that he is giving a Biblical basis for why he expects no aliens to be found. That is the given premise of this section. Even if his logic or explanation is flawed, it dishonest to extrapolate a different conclusion than the one he is attempting to present. The conclusion seems to be implied from the introduction.

"And I do believe there cant be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. "

If we are not the only intelligent beings, that presents the theological problem for Christians given that the gospel is meant for mankind. The existence of other intelligent beings would confuse the meaning and extent of the gospel, so it conflicts with a Christian worldview to expect to find other intelligent beings. The irreconcilable position of having creatures which were intelligent but could not respond to the gospel is the basis for expecting them not to exist, not that the ones whom you might presume to exist anyways will be going to Hell.
If Ken Ham wanted to send aliens to Hell he would say so and stick to what he said.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> You have to remember that even modern astronomy is a problem for some fundamentalist Christians. Satellites are bad because they assume a round earth, casting doubt on Scripture.
> 
> If it contradicts Scripture, wipe it out. That's my take-away from anything Ken says....
> 
> ...



Astronomy? For real? I honestly didn't know there was anyone that had a big problem with that. I should probably get out more.


----------



## asher (Jul 31, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Astronomy? For real? I honestly didn't know there was anyone that had a big problem with that. I should probably get out more.



If that's what you're going to find, maybe not.


----------



## asher (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> Wrong conclusion. The point of the article is that he is giving a Biblical basis for why he expects no aliens to be found. That is the given premise of this section. Even if his logic or explanation is flawed, it dishonest to extrapolate a different conclusion than the one he is attempting to present. The conclusion seems to be implied from the introduction.



It's not wrong if that's where his logic actually leads - which it is. We can't make allowances for people poorly employing logic in their arguments

Any if he expects aliens won't be found (or no "intelligent" life, which certainly leaves *tons* of wiggle room), why the hell is he going on about GodMartians?


----------



## Ricky Roro (Jul 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I'm struck by your use of the term "origin studies," which isn't part of any scientific field I know about. [/qoute]
> 
> I was speaking broadly. As I understand it, naturalism usually asserts that the universe as we know it originated from the 'big bang.' When I hear that people are studying what happens 'moments after the big bang' then I infer that they are studying to find what can be known about the origination and beginnings of the universe.
> 
> ...


----------



## tedtan (Jul 31, 2014)

Xaios said:


> What about the Gelgamek Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




New resources would be great, but we've already gained A LOT of technological advancements through our exploration of space. Even simple things like Velcro and carbon fiber.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> If we are not the only intelligent beings, that presents the theological problem for Christians given that the gospel is meant for mankind. The existence of other intelligent beings would confuse the meaning and extent of the gospel, so it conflicts with a Christian worldview to expect to find other intelligent beings. The irreconcilable position of having creatures which were intelligent but could not respond to the gospel is the basis for expecting them not to exist, not that the ones whom you might presume to exist anyways will be going to Hell.



What if, like Varcolac mentioned in post 26 above, the aliens were created by god, but never committed original sin and were therefore free from the need of the new covenant? I don't see that as being irreconcilable.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 31, 2014)

I agree with tedtan. It's possible, and totally logical but it's best not to speculate either way.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2014)

What's wrong exactly with speculating the existence of life beyond Earth?


----------



## SD83 (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> I believe that God created the universe, so that makes me comparable to the scum of the earth who slaughter children without remorse. That makes sense.


That was not what I said. To believe in God creating the earth does not make you a Creationist, just as to believe in the Quran does not make you a terrorist. And I didn't mean to say that Ham is as BAD as the Isis guys, but if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs and men walked side by side then yes, I think that is about the same level of insanity as to believe that women should be invisible and the infidels shall be slaughtered. The symptoms of the later are worse, but that also means it will probably not infect that many people as it seems too extreme, thus being the smaller of the problems. And I'm not at all sorry if that hurts someones feelings. 

I'm totally fine with ilyti's view of things, for example. It is not what I believe, but neither of us can prove the other wrong. If someone tries to tell me the earth is about 6000 years old, that does not only contradict 99% of science but even those things that you can actually witness. Erosion, for example. Assuming God made the universe, the universal laws of nature are God's laws. 

To get back on topic: 
The original sin. Adam's fault. God curses Adam and his descendants. Jesus. Salvation. In a christian context, that kind of makes sense to me. Maybe the aliens still live in Paradise because they didn't care about the apple. Or they had their own 'Adam'.
The original sin. Adam's fault. God curses all intelligent life. Jesus. Salvation, but only for Adam's descendants. In that case, God is an asshole (letting creatures suffer for absolutly nothing and never giving them a chance to end the suffering) and no one should support assholes.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

Let me summarize.



ilyti said:


> Circle and sphere are the same word in Hebrew.



And yet they're not. The Hebrews and Greeks knew the difference.That's why I mentioned it earlier, and pointed out that the Greeks also used the word for circle instead of sphere.

Maybe those authors got it wrong... but wait, there's no error... error... error, logic fail...

BTW, I'm going to lob you a softball: Why are there two different Nativity stories (Matthew and Luke) which are contradictory? They can't both be true because one features Herod the Great, and the other features Herod Antipas after Herod the Great died.

----

Naturalism studies and explains the cosmos, and everything in it, purely in natural terms. It means that you don't invoke any superstition which is outside the observable. To say that Vishnu, Brahma and the gang made it, or an Iron Age sky wizard did so, needs evidence that it really happened that way, *and* evidence of any particular deity and a naturalistic explanation for how their god powers work. 



Ricky Roro said:


> Heliocentrism does not contradict the Bible.



Wrong. The Old Testament has four verses claiming the Earth cannot be moved, and one stating the Sun moves around the Earth. 

It strikes me that there's two opposing viewpoints in all of this:

The Bible is inerrant.

You have to interpret the Bible differently than what it actually says, because what it actually says is maybe not so inerrant at your first reading.

I've run into that school of Biblical scholarship, where you have to interpret Scripture as being right, and so you have to find justifications for things which are just plain wrong. That's okay for religion, but it definitely makes a case, one you felt was unfair, that religious involvement makes any "scientific" ideas which come from that religion seem crazy. 

My goodness... again, I have to point out.

Science. You're doing it wrong. 

----

By the way, guys, don't feel bad. I really don't expect you to change your beliefs.

But it definitely clarifies the ground assumptions behind both sides when these discussions happen, and that helps those who read these topics clarify their own thinking.

The fact that one can claim a book with two contradictory stories has no factual errors lets someone say, Wow! That's for me! or Wow, I'm glad I didn't waste my time! It's like learning that Scientology teaches that aliens infest your soul, and you have to pay money to the church to get rid of them. 

Also, isn't it interesting that the same viewpoints keep showing up in the various topics? it's clear that a religious viewpoint is a uniting factor for a host of ideas....


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

Stumbled upon this, relevant.

The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology

I'm always interested when people argue against a Scriptural position without wanting to argue with Scripture itself.


----------



## ilyti (Aug 1, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Let me summarize.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just because you don't know the answers to those questions doesn't mean there aren't answers. If you approach the issues, and me, with a respectful attitude, I'd be happy to explain it. I am not going to respond to it the way you are talking to me right now. I do like talking about this sort of thing when I know the other person is making the effort to be respectful, and truly wants to understand my viewpoint.. Not when the only goal is to make fun of me publicly. I am not interested in teaching people the Bible who are going into it with the intention to prove everything I say wrong. If you go into learning about _*anything *_already believing that your viewpoint is the only correct one, first of all that is close-minded, and you're gonna have a bad time.


----------



## metaljohn (Aug 1, 2014)

*Ken Ham dies.
*Gets to Heaven
*St Peter is Aliens
*Angels is Aliens
*Jesus is Aliens
*God was Aliens the whole time

AWKWARD


----------



## vilk (Aug 1, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> 'religiously' believe in naturalistic evolution


 ... is it religious to believe things that are so far as we know scientifically verifiable? Do we 'religiously' believe that smoking causes cancer? Is it religion to say that color is reflected light? 

See, there's a difference between belief and religion. Have I ever tested the fact that I cannot consume gasoline in place of water? No. I haven't. No one I know has. I can tell you right now that I do not know from first hand experience. But I believe that man cannot drink very much gasoline and be ok. And I'm pretty sure that's not religious.



Ricky Roro said:


> Also, there are testable theories which can be extrapolated from a creationist perspective.
> -An intelligent creator made life
> -God made humankind uniquely intelligent and valuable, so alien intelligent life is not likely to be found.


Wait a minute, how are those things even remotely testable? I was reading along thinking... 'wait, really? I wonder what kind of theories he could mean', because there probably actually is something or other, and then you proceed to to make two points that are absolutely the opposite of anything that could ever be tested. The second point isn't even objective as a statement about humans.



Ricky Roro said:


> Science should simply be a method of testing ideas.


It is. That's how we even came up with the idea of naturalistic evolution. By testing ideas. It's not like some dude made up stories about the stars he saw at night and walked down from a mountain saying he talked to a burning science and the burning science told him how plants and animals came to be as they are now, he recorded observations on an island where people met him and saw what he was doing. It's not as though the first person to suggest evolution just pulled it out of the ass like a complete guess--it was literally through scientific observation that we came to the conclusion that it must be naturalistic evolution.

For all we know it could be wrong. But it's still science, and it isn't religion.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 1, 2014)

ilyti said:


> If you go into learning about _*anything *_already believing that your viewpoint is the only correct one, first of all that is close-minded, and you're gonna have a bad time.



Okay, then let me respectfully put some facts on the table, and then ask a question:

Herod the Great was King of Judea. After he died, Herod Antipas was made the ruler of a fourth of Judea (Tetrarch). Their positions did not overlap in any way, being separated by at least eight years. That is historical fact.

Scripture recognizes and defines Herod the Great and Herod Antipas as two different men. There is no assertion in Scripture which says they are the same person, no place where Scripture contradicts the known history on them being different.

Scripture says Jesus was born during the right of Herod the Great.

Scripture also says that Jesus was born when Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, was Tetrarch, which didn't happen until at least 8 years later. 

These two stories cannot both be true, because Herod the Great was dead by the time Herod Antipas was Tetrarch.

*Since the Bible **contains these two stories which are mutually exclusive and cannot both be reconciled as factually and historically true at the same time, how can one claim the Bible to be historically accurate, true, and free from all error?
*


----------



## ilyti (Aug 1, 2014)

As far as I can see both gospels of Matthew and Luke identify "Herod the King" as ruler when Jesus was born. It's just "Herod the King" - no qualifying title or secondary name, which would be necessary if we were talking about somebody else than Herod the Great. (Luke 1:5, Matthew 2:1). Herod was a family name, as you know, and it's easy to get them confused if you are not reading carefully. Nowhere that I found did it say Herod Antipas was ruler when Jesus was born.

In Luke's account, the name Herod, The District Ruler (or Tetrarch, i.e. Antipas) does not appear until the time when Jesus was an adult. (Luke 3:1). Matthew's account mentions Herod the Great's death at 2:15. And again, he doesn't refer to Antipas until Jesus was an adult. (Matt 14:1)

I don't know where you are getting this. 

Consider this: Is it possible that the Bible is free from error but that people's understanding of it can be thoroughly flawed? I'm not asking you to accept this, but that's what I believe. People have used the Bible to support a lot of crazy ideas over the years - be it a heliocentric view of the world or that there never were dinosaurs. But when doing so they have USED THE BIBLE WRONG. They did not let the Bible interpret itself, they read it with confirmation bias, trying to prove a point that they already believed. In that case, it's the people who are wrong, not the Bible that's wrong. They misinterpreted it.

But anyway, we're all buds here right?


----------



## Explorer (Aug 1, 2014)

Wow, another premises-conclusion argument to pin down! I wonder if this will go any better than the previous one, where Ken Ham pointed out that all hypothetical aliens are affected by the fall and are incapable of salvation, therefore will be going to the hell Ham has talked about more than once!

I do agree that folks here can be congenial, but sometimes people view dismissal of their logic as an attack. I like that my friends, both online and in real life, are the sort who can talk about when their ideas fall short, myself included. I'm happy to include you in that group, and that means I have high expectations for you. Moving on....

I'm gonna take this slow, so that any objections get taken care of sooner.



ilyti said:


> "Herod the King"



Do you recognize that Scripture knows the difference between "King" and "Tetrarch?" They're not the same thing, and Scripture is good about knowing the difference as well. 

Can we agree on that?


----------



## Joose (Aug 3, 2014)

And, Ken Ham is still a monumental moron.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 4, 2014)

Joose said:


> I just made this thread so I could read the comments
> 
> And, Ken Ham is still a monumental moron.



Made me laugh, especially since it's possible.

----

I was hoping to bring the whole "conflated Nativity" discussion and logical chain to the _reductio ad absurdum_ that all the non-Scriptural historical sources, with good provenances, are false because they contradict the Christian Scriptures, possibly due to a global conspiracy. This claim would be deeply ironic because many Christians claim that the Bible is fully supported by those same non-Scriptural historical sources which actually show Scripture to disagree with itself. 

And yes, I've had it suggested to me that all those other sources had been corrupted by Satan. It's definitely a matter of wanting to have it both ways, with objective outside corroboration but only by cherry picking what actually supports the desired conclusion.

I've been having this discussion ever since I was spending a lot of time on Biblical studies and started running into the various problems. I had a lot of sincere people who wanted to find a way around the issues, but eventually it was either:


Satan did it
Don't get hung up on that, because the message is more important
You should still believe that there's no error, and don't test Scripture because it's not for men to understand.
Anyway, I do hope we can move forward with this. If not, I'll feel like I'm being denied an opportunity to talk about this yet again....


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 10, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> Bullying is neither 'scientific' nor intelligent. Slander gets media attention because it is cheap, easy, and scratches the itch of resentful atheists who badly want the God of the Bible to be mocked.
> 
> So no, not really.


 
Out of everything that I do not like about religious beliefs, my biggest problem with religion is that these false ideas lead to poor decisions that affect others.

If you feel bullied, so be it. Anyone who has ever been told that they're going to hell for not believing this or that has felt bullied too. Anyone who has had to deal with religious zealots pushing for laws that affect everyone could say the same. Anyone who has been subjected to the pure idiocy of these beliefs could say they have been bullied.

Religion is silly. It is just sad that so many are zealous enough to make that silliness cause real damage to the world.


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 10, 2014)

ilyti said:


> What is a "circle" from any direction you look at it? A sphere. The Bible is accurate. The church made up the flat earth thing.


 
I would just like to point out that a circle has two dimensions, not three, and is therefore not a sphere.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 10, 2014)

I had pointed out that the word for "circle" and "sphere" were completely different, but that had no effect.

I just figure that there comes a point where, if you're having a discussion about Scripture and how it matches both itself and outside sources, you have to use purely internal contradictions, or major contradictions to observable fact, to finally get somewhere.

Even if somewhere is defined as "they fall silent because they're caught."

I'm still waiting to go through the tedious process of getting someone to agree with Scripture regarding Herod the Great and Herod Antipas, Tetrarch being two completely different men, according to Scripture. 

And remember, it matters because the claim that Scripture is inerrant is used to justify using it to decide laws and education in my country. That makes discussion of these extreme minority beliefs very relevant.


----------

