New planet found

Originally posted by rwingett
If it didn't have any life on it, then it wouldn't be EXACTLY like earth.

Good point

Originally posted by whodey
But your position is based upon your personal bias. IF you were a Christian you would probably find it more entertaining if the sister planet of earth had no life forms. What happened to abiogenesis? Why would it work here but not there? Did abiogenesis take a vacation? If this happened there is no doubt that explantions would abound in the scientific wo ...[text shortened]... lity, however, is that we seem to be the only life forms in the universe until proven otherwise.

I agree with some of this, but I would caution that despite the attempts of some in these threads, abiogenesis remains a principle rather than a theory. That is, in principle we (scientists and others) see life as coming from non life - therefore abiogenesis. In practice, we have no clearly defined sequence of events for this process - therefore no current theory.

Originally posted by whodey
I wonder, what would be the response if we discovered a sister planet EXACTLY like earth with zero life on it? What would be the reaction?

That it could not exist.
The exact atmosphere we have is the RESULT of life, it didn't get here by a meteor or comet.

What makes you all so sure that their are any religion on the new planet at all or even life?
"Praise to jesus" Right, nice insualt!!
Are you totaly bonkers or are just have you just lost your head?
Who says that life on this new planet is even walking on two feet? Edit:They can be any thinguse your imagenation.
I know because that is what we as humans are and think.
STOP.
Edit: They can be silicon based life or carbon or what ever other typ their is, we simply dont know, so stop beeing to judgeing.
Fact is what do we even know?

Originally posted by reader1107
[b]IF you were a Christian you would probably find it more entertaining if the sister planet of earth had no life forms.

But why? Do we have some sort of exclusive contract with God that says he can only create sentient beings on one planet?[/b]

All valid points, however, what do our "holy" books say about other life forms on other planets? The last time I checked they said nothing at all. Does this mean that there are no other life forms in the universe? No. However, would our "holy" books mention such life if we came into contact with it or vice versa as previously pointed out? I would say that they probably would. Then again, as I have pointed out, explanations as to why they have ont mentioned such life would inevitably come from those who are religious just as explanations come from those who are not religious in terms of explaning why we have found no other life forms in the universe, especially on earth-like planets. We have already seen one explanation that says that NO planet can ever be exaclty like earth.

Edit: Would'nt it be funny though if we were the only life forms in the universe. I think we tend to assume we are not due to the vastness of the universe in relation to earth and its size within that universe. However, what does size have to do with anything? Ok, let the jokes begin!!!!!!!

Originally posted by howardgee
You are a moronic religious bigot, Man Joos.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Originally posted by whodey
All valid points, however, what do our "holy" books say about other life forms on other planets? The last time I checked they said nothing at all. Does this mean that there are no other life forms in the universe? No. However, would our "holy" books mention such life if we came into contact with it or vice versa as previously pointed out? I would say tha ...[text shortened]... niverse. However, what does size have to do with anything? Ok, let the jokes begin!!!!!!!

The "holy books" for Christianity were written 2000-6000 years ago. Why would they say anything about life on other planets? They told the story of where they lived, and the history of their people, not a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Of course they said nothing at all about life on other planets. They didn't know that other planets existed. Nor did they indicate any awareness of the areas we now call China, North America, Australia, etc. My Bible wasn't rewritten to include giraffes, elephants, koala bears, cancer, the flu, diabetes ... the absence of things in the Bible means nothing.

What is it exactly that you think the Bible is for? Are you thinking that these books written by men dipping sticks in berry juice are supposed to explain everything that exists anywhere in the universe?

Originally posted by reader1107
The "holy books" for Christianity were written 2000-6000 years ago. Why would they say [b]anything about life on other planets? They told the story of where they lived, and the history of their people, not a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Of course they said nothing at all about life on other planets. They didn't know that other planets existed ...[text shortened]... cks in berry juice are supposed to explain everything that exists anywhere in the universe?[/b]

Also all good points. However, the Bible is also prophetic in nature, or at least for those who believe in it, so it stands to reason that such a dramtic discovery would be mentioned. Then again, if such a discovery leads to no great impact on human civilization perhaps it would not be mentioned.

Edit: The Bible focuses mainly upon what happens to Israel and the Jewish nation. After all, the Bible was written by Jewish men so anything that does not have a dramatic affect upon the nation of Israel should not be anticipated to be in the Bible. As for the Quran and other holy books I will let the followers of those books speak for themselves.