Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life?

[Kryst51]

Its a theory because science has a very high level of evidence/proof required before a theory is elevated to a fact, not because its just some guy's opinion.

Could you provide a source, or is this what you believe after the sum of your life experiences?

Yeah, those are both very biased sources. Ben Stein in particular.

This seems to be using the same logic as Mike375. If one claim by science has ever been refuted, then science as a whole must be suspect.

If you place evolution's likelihood of being correct at the same level as "god did it", then you must have a bad case of the faiths.

As an aside, a humorous rant I found on a CNN article questioning if Harry Potter was a "Good Christian"

Ben Stein interviewed noted evolutionists who admitted these things.... and those evolutionists are just as biased towards their point of view as he is.

As far as placing evoution on the same level, I am merely pointing out that what people deem as the authority of how we evolved, or came to be as humans is just as unproved as people think Creationism is.

Unfortunately I don't have resources to back up my arguments, you have heard it all before anyways, I just can't resist posting comments sometimes

Harry Potter as a good Christian.... I don't think he believes in Jesus, ..... However I see nothing wrong with watching it (See the thread I was lambasted on concerning my thoughts on this.)

Edit: I never said that all science is bunk.... I agree with science on many other things.

 

[ChipperT]

I have taken science course my entire school career and have learned plenty about evolution, its methods, evidences etc...... I have not been taught in school my entire life about Creationism however so I have attended seminars to learn.... Not close minded, different learning venues maybe.

Kryst51,
I wish I had the opportunity to sit down with you, one on one, and just discuss the Bible, the "infallible Word of God" that you base your faith on. But I suspect that it would be a short conversation and that you, as other have, would suddenly get up and leave in frustration when shown that this Word of God isn't really all you profess it to be and have no answer other than to shut your ears and run. It truly amazes me that Christians who profess that God made the world and everything in it, shut their minds to that very "creation" and refuse to believe the very evidence that their eyes, ears and other senses logical show them. Faith is a poor substitute for facts. I will say no more.

 

[ChipperT]

Originally Posted by "common sense", CNN Article
Top Ten Signs That You Are An Unquestioning Christian:
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.
9- You feel insulted and ‘dehumanized’ when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the ‘atrocities’ attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in ‘Exodus’ and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in ‘Joshua’—including women, children, and animals!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about god sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old!
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet wi th the exception of those who share your beliefs—though excluding those in all rival sects—will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most ‘tolerant’ and ‘loving’.
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor, speaking in ‘tongues,’ may be all the evidence you need.
2- You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history—but still call yourself a “Christian.”


Thank you, Adam for posting this. I had not seen it before. I definitely fall into #1. For years I studied the Bible as a Christian and then for years studied it as a non-Christian. And I mean studied as in not just reading the Bible but doing lots of research to understand it. It still amazes me that so many professed Christians who believe it to be the absolute Word of God know so little about it.

 

[Kryst51]

Kryst51,
I wish I had the opportunity to sit down with you, one on one, and just discuss the Bible, the "infallible Word of God" that you base your faith on. But I suspect that it would be a short conversation and that you, as other have, would suddenly get up and leave in frustration when shown that this Word of God isn't really all you profess it to be and have no answer other than to shut your ears and run. It truly amazes me that Christians who profess that God made the world and everything in it, shut their minds to that very "creation" and refuse to believe the very evidence that their eyes, ears and other senses logical show them. Faith is a poor substitute for facts. I will say no more.

I wish I could sit down with you too..... And I would get frustrated, I have a poor control over my temper..... I don't know that I would get up and leave though... That would be rude. As I don't know a ton about science, either way (I am not scientist, nor am I in a science related field of profession) I don't know that anything you could say would change my mind, but I would be happy to have a discussion ( I don't think either of us would convince the other). But, for discussion sake it would be cool, if at the end we could agree to disagree . I think at the very least, I believe to the very core of my being that God exists...... I have tried to deny it, I have wanted to deny it, but it is in me and I am not capable of it. Now that being said, even though those times have occurred, its not like I have ever believed evolution or the like. As far as other senses, logic etc.... I may not be the smartest when it comes to explaining myself but I have friends who are scientists, who have graduated from reputable universities with degrees in physics, etc who come to the same conclusions I have, It would be awesome if one of them could come, because then at least you would get a more informed discussion.

 

[Kryst51]

It still amazes me that so many professed Christians who believe it to be the absolute Word of God know so little about it.

That is very sad indeed..... Those people would get so much more out of their relationship with God if they did study the Bible more in depth.

 

[Rabbie]

Just a few comments on recent posts.

A belief in Christianity is not incompatible with a belief in Evolution. Bishops here in the UK have endorsed this. The only difference they have is on the origin of life. They believe it was divinely created and then evolved into different species etc.

I see it as a strength of Science that it does not cling onto theories that have been disproved

 

[Adam Caramon]

Ben Stein interviewed noted evolutionists who admitted these things.... and those evolutionists are just as biased towards their point of view as he is.

I'd have to see the actual information he is saying before making a determination. My personal bias is against Ben Stein. He is known for trying to make pseudo-scientific claims that support Christianity. He has pretty much been branded a hack by those that have researched his claims.

As far as placing evoution on the same level, I am merely pointing out that what people deem as the authority of how we evolved, or came to be as humans is just as unproved as people think Creationism is.

While that may be true, you're pointing to a false conclusion. Creationism requires faith, as you've mentioned in the past. Evolution does not require faith, it requires accepting that we don't know everything at this point.

Science does not take sides, it simply is. Individual scientists may be biased one way or another, but their claims are never just taken for granted. They have to be proven, repeatable. As such, this to me, and to many, gives science an 'edge' over religious claims (or any claim that is not backed by science really).

So while evolution is not 100% set in stone to the point where we can say exactly how everything happened, it is definitely more based in science and reality than Creationism is. To try to put them on the same level is a discredit to reason.

Plus, as you've mentioned before, religion requires faith. Faith is supposed to supercede all. As in, regardless of what the fact's state, you're still supposed to believe in what the bible says. So, your side doesn't really need facts or logic or information. You just need faith.

It is always interesting to me, then, that creationists try to scientifically discredit evolution (or any concept that doesn't agree with their religion). I think somewhere in everyone's minds there is doubt to their religion. Its the same with the earlier death discussion. Even though you may believe you go to heaven and such, you still fear death. Why? Because of doubt.

Unfortunately I don't have resources to back up my arguments, you have heard it all before anyways, I just can't resist posting comments sometimes

Its ok. I've been dealing with Mike375 on the semantics between the words "odds" and "chances" so I'm being overly-specific I suppose. We both like debating our side with the futile hope that there will be a specific fact or item that delivers the "Ah-ha!" moment, even though we know it isn't likely to occur.

Harry Potter as a good Christian.... I don't think he believes in Jesus, ..... However I see nothing wrong with watching it (See the thread I was lambasted on concerning my thoughts on this.)

Yeah, its a movie, its made for entertainment. I think people see messages where there aren't any.

There's this one Dane Cook skit where he talks about an atheist taking offense when he had said "God Bless you". The atheist says when he dies he'll turn return to the earth and be reborn as a tree. The punch line is Dane Cook says he hopes some sweaty logger chops him down, turn him into paper, and then prints the bible on him.

I laughed so hard when I heard it. Its a great setup, great joke. Even though I obviously disagree with it, it doesn't offend me. Some people just seem to take certain unimportant things way too seriously while not paying any attention to the actually important things.

Edit: I never said that all science is bunk.... I agree with science on many other things.

I understand what you're thinking. I think it would be amazing if we could see with like an MRI or a CT scan or something how the brain of a religious person works when they are exposed to something that goes against what their religion teaches.

I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but I would bet there is a different section or partition of the brain that becomes active at that point versus learning facts that don't rail against their religion.

 

[Kryst51]

I'd have to see the actual information he is saying before making a determination. My personal bias is against Ben Stein. He is known for trying to make pseudo-scientific claims that support Christianity. He has pretty much been branded a hack by those that have researched his claims.

OK

While that may be true, you're pointing to a false conclusion. Creationism requires faith, as you've mentioned in the past. Evolution does not require faith, it requires accepting that we don't know everything at this point.

Science does not take sides, it simply is. Individual scientists may be biased one way or another, but their claims are never just taken for granted. They have to be proven, repeatable. As such, this to me, and to many, gives science an 'edge' over religious claims (or any claim that is not backed by science really).

I have never claimed that Science requires faith, I say that Evolution requires faith based on the fact that many of its major supporters (interviews I have heard on Ben Steins "Expelled") say that it is highly unlikely to be true and the lack of evidence suggest that it is believed only because people want to.... Not based on science..... Thus requiring faith to support the belief....

So while evolution is not 100% set in stone to the point where we can say exactly how everything happened, it is definitely more based in science and reality than Creationism is. To try to put them on the same level is a discredit to reason.

Uh.... not according to everything I have heard..... And my reasoning is fine, you just don't reason the same way.....

Plus, as you've mentioned before, religion requires faith. Faith is supposed to supercede all. As in, regardless of what the fact's state, you're still supposed to believe in what the bible says. So, your side doesn't really need facts or logic or information. You just need faith.

Just because it basically comes down to faith doesn't mean that science doesn't point things out, just not everything..... All of creation declares the glory of God, thus science does too.

It is always interesting to me, then, that creationists try to scientifically discredit evolution (or any concept that doesn't agree with their religion). I think somewhere in everyone's minds there is doubt to their religion. Its the same with the earlier death discussion. Even though you may believe you go to heaven and such, you still fear death. Why? Because of doubt.

No, not because of doubt..... I don't like pain and do everythhing I can to avoid it.... I would be a masochist to say that I did want to experience pain.....

As far as why people try to discredit evolution, OK, I am glad you think that way.

Its ok. I've been dealing with Mike375 on the semantics between the words "odds" and "chances" so I'm being overly-specific I suppose. We both like debating our side with the futile hope that there will be a specific fact or item that delivers the "Ah-ha!" moment, even though we know it isn't likely to occur.

Well, I have given up on that with ya'll a long time ago, I mostly don't like misrepresentation of Christians now... I just can't resist as much as I try sometimes still. (redundant thought I know)

Yeah, its a movie, its made for entertainment. I think people see messages where there aren't any.

There's this one Dane Cook skit where he talks about an atheist taking offense when he had said "God Bless you". The atheist says when he dies he'll turn return to the earth and be reborn as a tree. The punch line is Dane Cook says he hopes some sweaty logger chops him down, turn him into paper, and then prints the bible on him.

I laughed so hard when I heard it. Its a great setup, great joke. Even though I obviously disagree with it, it doesn't offend me. Some people just seem to take certain unimportant things way too seriously while not paying any attention to the actually important things.

I love Dane Cook (despite his profanity and vulgarity sometimes, I can't watch everything by him) That sounds like a funny skit though.

I understand what you're thinking. I think it would be amazing if we could see with like an MRI or a CT scan or something how the brain of a religious person works when they are exposed to something that goes against what their religion teaches.

I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but I would bet there is a different section or partition of the brain that becomes active at that point versus learning facts that don't rail against their religion.

I think that would be an intriguing study, I think the brain is one of the coolest parts of us. I wonder if like other emotions (happiness, depression, anger, etc) part of it is a chemical imbalance, or chemical release or something of the kind.

 

[Galaxiom]

If this were really true then Christians would still insist that the world was flat despite all the proof to the contrary....

I don't know where the church stood on the flat Earth but lets take the well known and documented case of the Church versus Gallileo.

The Church held that the Heavens revolved around the Earth and threatened Galileo with a painful death unless he recanted his position. Four hundred years later the Church admitted they were wrong.

To me that does not indicate "capacity to change", but a capitulation in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The same thing has happened with Evolution. The Pope himself has actually acknowledged that Darwin is correct after just 150 years. The official line is now that God invented Evolution as the mechanism to propogate life after having seeded it during Creation. No doubt the Bible didn't explain that detail becuase it was "written in terms that people could understand at the time".

Remarkably, many of the faithful continue to argue the case against Evolution, forgetting that the Pope is infallable, being correct both before and after the change in his decree.

 

[Kryst51]

Remarkably, many of the faithful continue to argue the case against Evolution, forgetting that the Pope is infallable, being correct both before and after the change in his decree.

HA Ha Ha!!!! The pope! Infallable!!!! You're funny....

 

[ChipperT]

I don't know where the church stood on the flat Earth but lets take the well known and documented case of the Church versus Gallileo.

The Church held that the Heavens revolved around the Earth and threatened Galileo with a painful death unless he recanted his position. Four hundred years later the Church admitted they were wrong.

To me that does not indicate "capacity to change", but a capitulation in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The same thing has happened with Evolution. The Pope himself has actually acknowledged that Darwin is correct after just 150 years. The official line is now that God invented Evolution as the mechanism to propogate life after having seeded it during Creation. No doubt the Bible didn't explain that detail becuase it was "written in terms that people could understand at the time".

Remarkably, many of the faithful continue to argue the case against Evolution, forgetting that the Pope is infallable, being correct both before and after the change in his decree.

Ah, the Pope... now there's an interesting subject I could talk about for hours! Of course, "Good" Christians, "Saved" Christians believe the Pope is evil and all (or most) Catholics are going straight to Hell. You do know that the Pope has "666" embroidered on the inside of that funny hat he wears, proving that he is The Beast that we know is coming because Revelations says so?

Reminds me of the joke where the Catholic died and went to heaven. St. Peter was showing him around. "Now here are the mansions of alabaster, over there are the streets of gold. Here is the district where the saints live. Ok, but when we go through this neighborhood we have to be very, very quiet and not let them see us.". So they tiptoed through a large area where there were lots of people singing, shouting, speaking in tongues and generally loudly having a great time in Heaven. Once they left the district, the Catholic asked St Peter "why did we have to be so quiet and not let them see us?". St. Peter replied "Oh, those are the Pentacostalists. They think they are the only ones here!"

 

[Kryst51]

I don't know where the church stood on the flat Earth but lets take the well known and documented case of the Church versus Gallileo.

The Church held that the Heavens revolved around the Earth and threatened Galileo with a painful death unless he recanted his position. Four hundred years later the Church admitted they were wrong.

To me that does not indicate "capacity to change", but a capitulation in the face of overwhelming evidence.

All I can say to this is, OK, if that's how you define change.....

I think the fact that I don't believe the world is flat speaks volume to change, I'm sorry it's not as quick as you would like it to be.

 

[Kryst51]

The same thing has happened with Evolution. The Pope himself has actually acknowledged that Darwin is correct after just 150 years. The official line is now that God invented Evolution as the mechanism to propogate life after having seeded it during Creation. No doubt the Bible didn't explain that detail becuase it was "written in terms that people could understand at the time".

Remarkably, many of the faithful continue to argue the case against Evolution, forgetting that the Pope is infallable, being correct both before and after the change in his decree.

I don't believe the Pope has the right to tell every Christian what they should believe..... I don't even think all Catholics are Christians, they worship and pray to other things then Jesus (Mary, the Saints)

Shockingly enough I even believe (contrary to some other Christians) that the Earth was created in 7 days as we know them to be .... Not all Christians believe this though....

 

[Kryst51]

Ah, the Pope... now there's an interesting subject I could talk about for hours! Of course, "Good" Christians, "Saved" Christians believe the Pope is evil and all (or most) Catholics are going straight to Hell. You do know that the Pope has "666" embroidered on the inside of that funny hat he wears, proving that he is The Beast that we know is coming because Revelations says so?

Reminds me of the joke where the Catholic died and went to heaven. St. Peter was showing him around. "Now here are the mansions of alabaster, over there are the streets of gold. Here is the district where the saints live. Ok, but when we go through this neighborhood we have to be very, very quiet and not let them see us.". So they tiptoed through a large area where there were lots of people singing, shouting, speaking in tongues and generally loudly having a great time in Heaven. Once they left the district, the Catholic asked St Peter "why did we have to be so quiet and not let them see us?". St. Peter replied "Oh, those are the Pentacostalists. They think they are the only ones here!"

I don't think he's evil, I just don't think that he has a more direct line to God then I do.....

 

[Mike375]

Ok, so since religion is not argued upon facts, that means it does not need to rely on them. It can always handwave away the things that don't seem to make sense with a simple religious phrase.

But, does that mean to YOU, I'm asking your thoughts here, that they are more valid than scientific fact?

In my opinion the beginning of the universe has no connecttion or reliance on any natural laws we have.

Whatever happens outside our natural laws is generally called supernatural.

I know that not all religious people are some form of Christianity. But your defense of Christianity seems to imply you hold some of the same beliefs (or you're just arguing to argue, but that could not be it ).

Show me where I have argued Christianity is correct. What I have said is I think the Bible probably has a basis of truth, that is, something was happening all those years ago which is what triggered the writings.

The rest of your post is a religious theme.

 

[Mike375]

This seems to be using the same logic as Mike375. If one claim by science has ever been refuted, then science as a whole must be suspect.

You are misquoting

My reference was to a science "fact" that you might base your argument on is changed and the thus the floor is pulled from under your argument.

 

[Mike375]

The same thing has happened with Evolution. The Pope himself has actually acknowledged that Darwin is correct after just 150 years. The official line is now that God invented Evolution as the mechanism to propogate life after having seeded it during Creation. No doubt the Bible didn't explain that detail becuase it was "written in terms that people could understand at the time".

I went to a Catholic school and in the religious class around 1962-63, when I was 14 or 15, evolution was taught as being OK but at some point along the way God inserted the soul.

Remarkably, many of the faithful continue to argue the case against Evolution, forgetting that the Pope is infallable, being correct both before and after the change in his decree.

Not too sure about that with Catholics. Every person I have met that is a creationist have been other than Catholics.

As best I can remember I don't think the Catholic church has ever had a 100% reliance or support of "all" of the Bible. From memory they have always claimed they can be traced back all the way to Peter but the Bible comes later.

 

[Galaxiom]

Concerning fossils I think that our dating methods are flawed (in the past I have heard leactures on this, and though I don't remember the particulars, I came away with this belief)....

This is typical thinking for the faithful. Accept on the basis of a lecture they don't understand, as presented by someone with a predetermined position. without critical analysis of the claims.

There are many diverse dating methods each with their strengths, time scales and vulnerabilities to error. Their veracity is established because they form a coherent, chronologically sensible body of data based on (at the very least) tens of thousands of independent, reliable observations and measurements.

The faithful choose to attack small pieces of data at the edges of the the scope of just one of the methods and conveniently ignore the available corroborating data using alternatives because they do not have a strategy to attempt to discredit it.

And as far as the theory of evolution is occurred, it is just that, a theory...

Ho hum, yawn. Arguing against Evolution because it is "just a theory" is a semantic misuse of language. Theory is the word used to describe a scientific proposition. Just type "theory" into Google and see how many different theories you get.

We don't have "The Fact of Relativity", "The Fact of Continental Drift" because we are describing a coherent body of dynamic relationships governed by underlying physical process that can be demonstrated to produce effects that match the observed evidence.

Only religion has "The Truth", a purported fact presented without a shred of evidence or explanation of coherent mechanisms that would cause even the claimed effect beyond "God did it".

For example, marching around Jericho seven times playing seven trumpets for seven days and the walls will collapse. Did this action directly lead to the fall of the walls? If so, by what mechanism? Or was God just in need of amusement for surely He could have commanded the walls to collapse any time He wished.

Rational analysis gives a better explanation. The Fall of Jericho is a story designed to teach the faithful to follow every command no matter how ridiculous it may seem.

There are so many gaps in the "evidence" for it, and even many evolutionists have agreed that it is unlikely but they prefer that to the alternative (God Created the Earth).

There are no gaps in the Theory of Creationism because there aren't two data points to delineate the potential for a gap. "God created everything" is the entire theory and it is based on the sole piece of evidence, "We are here."

No doubt the "Creation Scientists" told you that many scientists don't believe in Evolution and you accepted this on faith. What do they even mean by "many" evolutionists? Did they quote names and sources?

In any case, unlike religion, science is not based personalities but verifiable observations. The standing of a person may encourage others start listening but their reputation offers nothing as support for their hypothesis if it conflicts with observation. Religon is based on accepting the musings of designated authorities above evidence.

I certainly haven't studied this myself, but have been to seminars of Creation scientists that study these issues,

What would you expect from them? Do you really think they would even look at, let alone present, both sides of the argument or even the tinest edge of doubt?

They conduct these seminars to reinforce the ignorance of the believers lest the evidence pollutes their faith. The faithful are easily convinced and, like you, don't even care to remember the arguments for their case.

Perhaps you should balance your view by attending real scientific lectures. You will find that when scientists discuss the cutting edge of their field they activeily invite presention and debate from multiple perspectives in order to elucidate the whole evidence as clearly as possible.

 

[Mike375]

I partly believe in evolution but I think there are things missing. I also think a lot of people who say they "believe in evolution" in reality only believe in species adaptation through natural selection.

The evolution Vs creationist stuff has some weak things from either side.

 

[Galaxiom]

Let's say I leave home and get up to 50% speed of light and head to a planet 10 light years away.

I am cruising at 50% light speed and the only thing I oberves that is "not right" is my remaining fuel. Newton is on board doing his equations and his best answer is we had a fuel leak But the leak appears to have stopped.

Nice one about Newton and the leak. Hope he is not navigating since he would be getting distance wrong too.

So about 20 years after leaving home we can observe the new planet with our new special equipment, we are a light week from the new home and still doing 50% light speed.

That is twenty years by those at the departure and destination. For you it will only be seventeen years and four months.

(This relationship is Pythagorean. The square of your speed through time plus the square of your speed through space equals the square of the speed of light, the only speed in the Universe).

Is the data we get back on the planet such as its mass the same as we established from earth.

No, the planet appears heavy and flattened in the direction you are travelling.

As noted above it takes less time to get there than expected as measured by the clock on board the ship. Consulting the speedometer and comparing with the time we can only conclude that the distance is less than we researched on GoogleSpace before we set out. Likewise the planet looks flattened due to "Relativistic Foreshortening".

The mass is harder to explain but I will try to keep it simple. Firstly remember there is no absolute inertial frame. Every perspective is as valid as every other. That is the basis of Relativity.

Although in some ways we can consider the planet as moving towards us, the crucial difference is the space in between is stationary for them but moving for us.

To us it appears they are only travelling the foreshortened distance towards us. Consequently we see their speed towards us as slower than our speedometer reading.

However when we send the probe to collide with it (in order to determine its mass by the rebound) we find that it has considerably more momentum than we expected from that speed. We can only conclude that its mass was higher than the link on GoogleSpace had told us.

From their perspective they see our probe moving the whole distance because the space separating us is stationary relative to them. However their clock is ticking faster than ours so the probe doesn't appear to be travelling as fast for them as our speedometer reading. Likewise, after the collision they conclude the mass of our probe is higher than expected.

We then start the retro rockets to slow from 50% light speed down to the speed to orbit the planet will the fuel used be greater than expected by copilot Newton and his equations.

Yes. As our frame of reference changes back to that of the planets, the relativistic kinetic energy must be extracted. (Better start work on Isaac early as he was known for being rather arrogant.)

From our perspective have we aged less than the 20 years at 50% light speed. Does the slow down from 50% light speed reverse things.

No. The time that you "saved" is never lost. It is important to realise that this isn't an illusion caused by speed. Your time is absolutely as valid as any other measurement of time in the Universe. What is lost is the whole meaning of "simultaneous" for things moving relative to each other at high speed.

Time only passes at the same rate for objects that are not moving relative to each other (and have the same gravitational influences, but that is another story that took another decade for Einstein to fully grasp).

With the increase in mass as we speed up to light speed is that based on a change of velocity or the percentage of light speed. Let's say to rockets have both sped up to 50% of light speed and turn the motors off. Next day rocket 1 turns the motors back on and increases the speed from 50% light speed to 50% plus 100,000 mph. On rocket 2 we don't restart the motors but instead we launch another rocket from it and its speed goes to 100,000 mph relative to the mother ship. Does the small rocket increase in mass as per Einstein?

It depends on where you measure from. It is as a function of the percentage of light speed relative to the observer's frame of reference. You will observe a very, very small increase in mass of the probe while observers on Earth will see a larger one. This is because of the Pythagorean relationship that makes the effect more pronounced as we approach the speed of light.

All this sort of stuff could make a man believe in a god

No need for a God. What science knows of reality is far weirder than anything the religious could possibly dream up. Truth is really stranger than fiction especially when it gets to Quantum Mechanics. Cause and Effect no longer apply. Instead probabiliies take over, allowing counter intuitive possibilites like someting being literally in two places at once. (I kid you not.)

If you want a real conundrum that will set your mind spinning about the potential for faster than light communication, check out "Quantum Entanglement".