Ultimate Purpose of Space Shuttle Program?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you honestly believe there will be war in a world converted by the gospel?

How do you expect the earth to sustain the entire human population when mothers have 5 kids by 30 years old?

I don't believe God will let us out populate the home he's given us either, thats why he's given us the heavens and put us in dominion over them through Christ Psalm 8.
 
Yeah I'd like to see some more on this earth=home argument. I don't understand why it can't as easilly be solar system=home or galaxy=home.
 
Peter, you are making great presumption upon me. Where did I ever state that I was a postmillinialist? My point is that I am not yet convinced of such. However, I am neither throwing it out. I'm currently learning WHAT postmil is.
 
Yes, you have...and I am pointing out that you should never have made that assumption of a person.

If all your statements are based upon that premise (that postmil is the correct stand), then you and I may or may not ever agree.

Even from a postmil presup, I at this current moment do not believe we will ever out populate the planet. I also do not believe we will ever practically colonize another planet. Look around you in nature. Fish cannot survive outside of water. And in an artificial environment they are dependant upon us to feed them. Sure, plant things on Mars. They won't grow. Except in an expensive and suseptible artificial environment. And then it would be limited. Ya'll are also taking out of consideration the distance of Mars from the Sun. If our earth were to move that far, we would not be able to exist.
 
I never made an assumption of a person. I made an assumption of a proposition (postmill is true) and I was trying to carry on a conversation about the logical conclusions of that assumption (space settlement is necessary).
 
okay...my bad (on the postmil part)

I just disagree with your conclusions on both logical and practical working grounds.
 
Still, though, that may be why Dutch people are mostlly Amil: its cheaper.:bigsmile:
 
Originally posted by SRoper
Yeah I'd like to see some more on this earth=home argument. I don't understand why it can't as easilly be solar system=home or galaxy=home.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest reasons I can think of is because we are promised the return of Christ. How is He to return? In the same way He left.

Sorry folks, all of redemptive history will take place here on this planet. If we get too crowded, I would imagine that God will prune the plant - or planet, if you don't mind the pun.

Jesus is going to return to earth. There will be a new heavens and a new earth. God didn't say anything about Mars.

In Christ,

KC
 
Furthermore, the way you are arguing it seems we would miss his return unless we were in Palestine. After all, that is where he departed from.
 
Everyone on Earth will know when Christ returns. If you're on Mars, my guess is, you'd miss it.

Besides there'll be other indications. Splitting of the eastern sky, trumpet sounds, dead in Christ will rise.

In Christ,

KC
 
Ok but whose to say that after His return we dont colonize the universe and take dominion over it?

So how do we deal with overpopulation now? Do we kill people off? What about depletion of natural resources? Eventually we will run out of oil? There are alternatives like wind and the sun but is the world ready to accept change?


Blade
 
Originally posted by kceaster
Everyone on Earth will know when Christ returns. If you're on Mars, my guess is, you'd miss it.

Besides there'll be other indications. Splitting of the eastern sky, trumpet sounds, dead in Christ will rise.

In Christ,

KC
Click to expand...

You seriously think that a christian not on earth will miss out on the return of Christ? Would an unbeliever escape God's judgment by fleeing to outspace? Its futile trying to explain exactly what every detail of the 2nd coming and resurrection will be like, we simply don't know the particulars and can't with the limited data we have. So then trying to exclude those on other planets for factors we think are improbable doesnt work.
 
Originally posted by Peter
Originally posted by kceaster
Everyone on Earth will know when Christ returns. If you're on Mars, my guess is, you'd miss it.

Besides there'll be other indications. Splitting of the eastern sky, trumpet sounds, dead in Christ will rise.

In Christ,

KC
Click to expand...

You seriously think that a christian not on earth will miss out on the return of Christ? Would an unbeliever escape God's judgment by fleeing to outspace? Its futile trying to explain exactly what every detail of the 2nd coming and resurrection will be like, we simply don't know the particulars and can't with the limited data we have. So then trying to exclude those on other planets for factors we think are improbable doesnt work.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think anyone will miss out on Christ's return, which is why I believe that He's coming back to earth, the dead in Christ shall rise, and we who are alive will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. I think the Holy Spirit knows where this is going to take place, and if there were other planets involved, we would have known about it.

There is no defense of extra-terrestrial living according to the Scriptures. We were created here, we'll all be here when that creation comes to the end of the age.

It is God's universe, there is no doubt about that, but the Bible is pretty specific about the limit of mankind. If you claim that we'll live on other planets, we can't get that from Scripture. That means that Scripture has nothing to say about it. I choose not to go where Scripture does not go.

As for resources and world population, God is very capable of handling all those problems, in ways we probably don't want to think about. We can't believe that fossil fuels and energy are outside God's purview to provide. He provides what we have now, is there any reason to believe that God will not continue to uphold His creation?

In Christ,

KC
 
"It is God's universe, there is no doubt about that, but the Bible is pretty specific about the limit of mankind. If you claim that we'll live on other planets, we can't get that from Scripture. That means that Scripture has nothing to say about it. I choose not to go where Scripture does not go."

So you subscribe to some sort of regulative principle of residence? we can't live any where God has not commanded?

God has created all things and set man over *all* the works of his hands, including the heavens. PSALM 8.
 
Guys,

I'll leave you to your science FICTION. I don't have enough faith to say that God'll let us live on other planets.

He commanded us to fill the earth, not fill the heavens. One of these days, we'll see who's right.

Blessings,

KC
 
Well many thought that anything that said the earth wasnt Flat was fiction or that the Sun revolved aorund the earth as Fiction. But they were proven wrong.

But at least your being polite :)

blade
 
Very few and very ignorant ppl believed the earth was flat. The public schools really hyped that one up.

Also, I've never seen in scripture where it states that God put man in charge of the heavens, only over all living living things that are on the earth.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Sure, plant things on Mars. They won't grow. Except in an expensive and suseptible artificial environment. And then it would be limited.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

There are already places on earth (the poles) which endure extreme temperatures, much like what you find on Mars. And there is ALREADY life there.

Of course it would be silly to put an elephant or oak tree on Mars for starters. Rather, you would transplant Earth-life that would be immediately comfortable on Mars.

Then, over a period of many years, those life forms would multiply exponentially, and would change the atmosphere of Mars itself, converting CO2 into O2. With some oxygen in the atmosphere, there are even more life forms that would be able to exist there.

I am talking about a gradual change of the Martian environment itself. Of course if we dropped all of Earth's life onto Mars today, 99% of it would die, but not 100%! But no one would do that anyway. Rather, you gradually introduce life that can pioneer in those harsh conditions, and then let the life forms themselves change the face of Mars.

It's like what happens on new volcanic islands, only to a much greater degree. First, only a few simple life forms migrate to the island and are able to survive. But over centuries, the island itself is changed by the presence of life, and eventually, much more complex and advanced life forms can live there.

It is important to remember that there are some life forms on Earth that could live on Mars *today* without any "artificial environment" at all.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by Don
I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix
Click to expand...

I've read that before....which is why I stated that Extensive space exploration/colonization is impractical.
Click to expand...

I am not impressed with that article. It certainly demonstrates that we don't have the technology today to perform long-range manned trips throughout the universe. But that says nothing about future technology.

It is interesting to read what scientists had to say a century or two ago about the practicality of flight, rapid ground transportation, space travel of any kind, etc. The claims of impossibility and impracticality are very common until some bloke who doesn't listen to them just goes out and does what everyone is calling impossible.

As someone once said, "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."

A huge portion of our modern technology would have been good science-fiction material a century or two ago. (In fact, some of it was! Ever read Jules Verne?) Similarly, I have no doubt that the technology of a century or two in our future is beyond what we would currently even think possible.
 
Joseph....

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Sure, plant things on Mars. They won't grow. Except in an expensive and suseptible artificial environment. And then it would be limited.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

There are already places on earth (the poles) which endure extreme temperatures, much like what you find on Mars. And there is ALREADY life there.

Of course it would be silly to put an elephant or oak tree on Mars for starters. Rather, you would transplant Earth-life that would be immediately comfortable on Mars.

Then, over a period of many years, those life forms would multiply exponentially, and would change the atmosphere of Mars itself, converting CO2 into O2. With some oxygen in the atmosphere, there are even more life forms that would be able to exist there.

I am talking about a gradual change of the Martian environment itself. Of course if we dropped all of Earth's life onto Mars today, 99% of it would die, but not 100%! But no one would do that anyway. Rather, you gradually introduce life that can pioneer in those harsh conditions, and then let the life forms themselves change the face of Mars.

It's like what happens on new volcanic islands, only to a much greater degree. First, only a few simple life forms migrate to the island and are able to survive. But over centuries, the island itself is changed by the presence of life, and eventually, much more complex and advanced life forms can live there.

It is important to remember that there are some life forms on Earth that could live on Mars *today* without any "artificial environment" at all.
Click to expand...

You're kind of coming at this problem a bit terrestrially. First, while we would say things do grow in hostile environments on our planet, they are still on our planet. I was reading a few years ago about how delicate our water cycle is on this planet. If that water cycle were not as it is, life would not, could not exist. In fact our water cycle is aided by meteorites and other space objects that collide with our atmosphere constantly. This in turn keeps our water cycle going.

They are trying to prove that Mars has a similar, albeit, smaller type of atmosphere that would suggest a type of water cycle could be sustained, but not without intervention.

If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. To say that Mars could be another earth assumes that earth has been set in motion without the sustaining hand of God. Were God to remove His control over our planet, we would die instantly.

But if we breathe because of the good pleasure of God, He must sustain us by ensuring that the planet we live on is in good working order. And so He does. There is not one random molecule or atom or subatomic particle in the universe that our God does not say, "Do this."

Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so. Will He give men wisdom and intelligence so that they can artificially do so? Again, we cannot look at this in terms of the allowance of God, but the sustenance of God. Just because man builds it or discovers it or manipulates it, does not mean that God takes His hands off of it. There is no place in our universe God does not own and maintain.

In Christ,

KC
 
Joseph...

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by Don
I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix
Click to expand...

I've read that before....which is why I stated that Extensive space exploration/colonization is impractical.
Click to expand...

I am not impressed with that article. It certainly demonstrates that we don't have the technology today to perform long-range manned trips throughout the universe. But that says nothing about future technology.

It is interesting to read what scientists had to say a century or two ago about the practicality of flight, rapid ground transportation, space travel of any kind, etc. The claims of impossibility and impracticality are very common until some bloke who doesn't listen to them just goes out and does what everyone is calling impossible.

As someone once said, "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."

A huge portion of our modern technology would have been good science-fiction material a century or two ago. (In fact, some of it was! Ever read Jules Verne?) Similarly, I have no doubt that the technology of a century or two in our future is beyond what we would currently even think possible.
Click to expand...

This is where science fiction does not help us. Have you ever seen the shows where people swear that they've seen crafts flying at extremely high speeds at area 51?

Two problems:

1. When they stop from this high speed, there is no correspondent reaction, which means that either Newton's 3rd law of motion is wrong, or they've found a way to build an inertial dampener (See Star Trek).

2. Even if they could stop that mass from moving, the objects inside the mass would be crushed by the G-forces. We do not have the technology at present that any electronic component would be able to withstand the pressure without some highly evolved environmental controls. (See Star Trek, again.)

What this article is saying is that technology does not set aside the laws of motion, pressure, atmosphere, etc. And even if an energy source is one day available for such things, we may not be able to endure the trip because our insides will become our outsides.

Blessings,

KC
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by Don
I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix
Click to expand...

I've read that before....which is why I stated that Extensive space exploration/colonization is impractical.
Click to expand...

I am not impressed with that article. It certainly demonstrates that we don't have the technology today to perform long-range manned trips throughout the universe. But that says nothing about future technology.

It is interesting to read what scientists had to say a century or two ago about the practicality of flight, rapid ground transportation, space travel of any kind, etc. The claims of impossibility and impracticality are very common until some bloke who doesn't listen to them just goes out and does what everyone is calling impossible.

As someone once said, "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."

A huge portion of our modern technology would have been good science-fiction material a century or two ago. (In fact, some of it was! Ever read Jules Verne?) Similarly, I have no doubt that the technology of a century or two in our future is beyond what we would currently even think possible.
Click to expand...

:ditto:

See this article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

Many people deny the future because their imagination cannot conceive the impossible. Every new discovery is proof that the universe is stranger and more orderly than we could ever imagine.

I am glad God is the designer and creator. We would have either botched it up in a committee or drug it out for half of eternity until it would have been too expensive to do. :bigsmile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Southern Presbyterian
  • Locked
Today in History - Space Shuttle Enterprise
Replies
2
Views
1K
Reformed Baptist
R
JM
  • Locked
The ultimate question
Replies
21
Views
3K
Ivan
Ivan
ReformedWretch
  • Locked
AVOID Christian version of My Space!
Replies
20
Views
2K
BobVigneault
BobVigneault
Sonoftheday
  • Locked
The Purpose of the Church
Replies
4
Views
2K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
TimV
  • Locked
Billing program?
Replies
3
Views
1K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Back
Top