Any Alien Life Elsewhere?

The supposed separation of the first and second creation accounts in Genesis could allow the former to be universally true and the later true in the case of this earth only. There could be many "earths" with life on them, but there is no necessity in any scripture in the bible for such alien life. (Indeed there is no such apparent discrepancy of the accounts, merely the appearance that the Adamic creation is a subset of the sixth day scenario.)

The myth of the "nephilim" or the angels that had come to earth and interbred with women are described as the "sons of God." That only Noah was spared the flood because he was "perfect in all his generations" has led many to believe that these "sons of God" are angels of satan, and the possibility that alien life in the form of "near-humans" coming to earth requires a spiritual fulfilment rather than a biological one.

Of course, if these men from another world once visited and are also truly corporeal, where are they now, and why do they not visit openly? Clearly there is an insistent gap in history for their visitation. It makes more sense to believe they are "angels of satan" now hiding amongst us or the "sixth day man" alternative has effect where Adamic man is a separate bloodline on the earth to the man of the former account. This alternative has led to much racism and finger pointing, although biblically only Noah's bloodline survives to this day.

Aside from this discussion, I want to comment on whether the extrapolation of evolution to other planets is actually plausible based on that which we see upon the earth. Especially if indeed God created this world in the universe as the only planet with life. (Assume that this is the only such planet if you have no God.) Then is alien life a scientific idea? Is such extrapolation logical?

I once saw a documentary "Wonders Of The Solar System" (episode name "Aliens") that made the argument that life in all probability exists on other planets even within our solar system. Evidence of water features on Mars and moons elsewhere in our solar system, as well as the presence of environments that are also similarly present on Earth were listed. In all these examples of sheer ice and lack of light and great pressure, it was shown that these features on Earth were full of life ranging from the single cellular to tube worms and things no one would like floating in their breakfast cereal.

The premise is, if life can adapt here (in these places) then there is no reason that they may not be in the other similar places in our solar system. Of particular interest were the driest places on Earth, that have seen no rain for thousands of years. With absolutely no water there is absolutely no life. Not even one bacterium. The presence of water on Mars or Io or Europa was cited, as well as the activity of heat plumes and volcanoes.

That life exists on Earth, 2 miles under the sea at incredible pressures centred around deep sea vents of gas that provide a source of heat in the crushing dark is amazing. That life also exists frozen inside solid ice, that melts the water around its small cellular vessel by its own extraction of energy from the food within the ice it melts, as it swims through the glass like prison it inhabits is likewise, breathtaking.

However... If life evolved, why would it evolve there?

Surely, life if it did evolve most likely would evolve where it was easiest to do so. So the presence of life in these unlikely places if evolution is to be adhered to strictly is a contaminated experiment! (It may have adapted to the conditions from elsewhere on Earth.) Point said. The argument applied by the program to the planetoid-wide environments elsewhere are null and void if this is the case!

Scientifically put: The assumption does not hold up to scrutiny. It is without a scientific control as a thought experiment. If we were to assume life could thrive there in extreme situations on an alien world, we must be able to have a 'control' to test the assumption of a planet with life, but only "extreme-o-phile life". (So that in such adverse conditions life could evolve in them rather than migrate from a less extreme situation.)

I.e. we need a control to compare to our alien world that has no 'extreme-o-phile' life, whilst being a planet with life. Properly put: We must have a planet with life that has no life adapted to fill these conditions, and where all life is unable to migrate to them. Can we prove this? Where would we look except the Earth itself, which is unsuitable for a control, even from which to extrapolate the premise for a control? The driest places on Earth are likewise not a suitable control, since life exists far easier elsewhere on earth - and the dry lifeless deserts are themselves, uninhabitable by any life as we know it. (As would totally dry planets be, having no water at all.)

Even if we find life on another planet with such exclusionary features, it would not plausibly have followed from the observation of such extreme life on earth. - also we would have as our control an alien world with life - already defeating the need for justifying the argument. The alternative is a planet with no life at all... and we may have plenty of those! If such a control would exist, it would be already contaminated with (non-extreme-o-phile) life and would or could not be an effective control to show alien life was possible in extreme climates. It is implausible on the basis of earth's extremes that a planet would not have life adapting into similar extremes rather than purely arising from them.

Of course 'Earth wise', if there is life out there and God's acts of creation did also happen elsewhere, their existence is a moot (but incredible) point.

So, extreme climates may exist on other planets, but the documentary was perhaps one on Earth's nature and not conclusive as an argument for alien life; as opposed to a massive headline grabbing worldwide exclusive,.. perhaps I missed that one!

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page