Alien life form 'is here on Earth'

[Anselm33]

Don’t I know it! Explain that when you have the time.

This thread has really got off topic, which started off about the finding that bacteria from Lake Mono could (presumably) replace phosphorus by arsenic (found in the lake). Why all the creationist and literalist nonsense?
For a Catholic interpretation of what Holy Scripture tells us I recommend Cardinal Ratzinger’s article.
christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/biblical-crisis.htm
and any of his numerous books on the subject.
(In case you didn’t know Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI)
anselm

 

[johnpfmcguire]

This thread has really got off topic, which started off about the finding that bacteria from Lake Mono could (presumably) replace phosphorus by arsenic (found in the lake). Why all the creationist and literalist nonsense?
For a Catholic interpretation of what Holy Scripture tells us I recommend Cardinal Ratzinger’s article.
christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/biblical-crisis.htm
and any of his numerous books on the subject.
(In case you didn’t know Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI)
anselm

While some have tried to deflect by dragging me into creationist/literalist nonsesnse; I was talking legitimate science and legitimate history. (My condolences to those who cannot distinguish.) Which, if you don’t mind terribly, we shall continue doing…

 

[StAnastasia]

I also have no problem with believing in the existence of Noah’s Ark. National Geographic recently uncovered and heavily publicized convincing evidence of at least a major regional flood by finding Neolithic villages at the bottom of the Black Sea (and their evidence does not rule out a disaster of even larger scope, I might add). The evidence I’ve seen on Noah’s Ark, however, has not stood up well to serious scrutiny, even from the religious community.

Rolltide, I teach theology and history at a moderate sized Catholic university. It would be interesting some day to compare notes!

Almost all civilizations that began in river valleys have some sort of story of a primal flood and of the one person of family that survived. Ryan’s and Pitman’s Black Sea flood theory is intriguing, but even if discredited it doesn’t invalidate the idea of historic floods becoming enshrined in cultural memory.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Sensation title, but the article explains that life emerged from a toxic lake. The microbes are based on arsenic, not the usual phosphorous. I suppose the implications are that life on Earth may not be so unique in the universe. But I am a laymen, so what do I know?

Windfish, by popular request I’m returning to your original topic. It will be interesting to see how the scientific debate sparked by this article plays out, but in any case, I cannot see how it would change the theological landscape. We know from Genesis 1 that God called forth life from the sea and from the land, so there should be no theological problems with God calling forth life from Mono Lake, or from under the icy crust of Europa, or from the hyrdocarbon lakes of Titan, or from anywhere else in the universe that has gravity, light, warmth, and chemistry suitable to life.

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

We know from Genesis 1 that God called forth life from the sea and from the land, so there should be no theological problems with God calling forth life from Mono Lake, or from under the icy crust of Europa, or from the hyrdocarbon lakes of Titan, or from anywhere else in the universe that has gravity, light, warmth, and chemistry suitable to life.

StAnastasia

StA - what you posted here sounds just like IDvolution.

 

[StAnastasia]

StA - what you posted here sounds just like IDvolution.

I didn’t know that’s what you meant by IDvolution.

 

[buffalo]

I didn’t know that’s what you meant by IDvolution.

After all this time…

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Great minds think alike.

 

[Anselm33]

skymania.com/wp/2010/11/alien…on-earth.html/

Sensation title, but the article explains that life emerged from a toxic lake. The microbes are based on arsenic, not the usual phosphorous.

I suppose the implications are that life on Earth may not be so unique in the universe. But I am a laymen, so what do I know?

The findings have drawn lots of criticism from real biologists/biochemists: see
slate.com/id/2276919/
I guess my original skepticism was justified, but I’m embarrassed that I didn’t see all the correct criticisms.
anselm

 

[cassini]

There was no “ark,” unless it was a small boat used to rescue a family and their animals during a local flood…

Wow StA, talk about undermining Scripture and Tradition, MODERNISM (sorry johnpfmcguire) at its best. The reason I believe there was an Ark, and it exactly the size described in Genesis, in which the last eight persons on earth were saved, plus a load of animals for preservation, is because the Ark in Tradition is a symbol of Christ and His Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas (a.D. 1226 - 1274):
“There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church.”

St. Robert Bellarmine (a.D. 1542 - 1621):
“Outside the Church there is no salvation…therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins”…For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."

Now you expect Catholics to believe the ark was a boat in which a few people and their dogs.cats and chickens used to escape a local flood -** while millions elsewhere didn’t need saving?**

 

[cassini]

While some have tried to deflect by dragging me into creationist/literalist nonsesnse; I was talking legitimate science and legitimate history. (My condolences to those who cannot distinguish.) Which, if you don’t mind terribly, we shall continue doing…

John, I am confused. It is due to your style, your no nonsense approach, brilliant satire yes, but at times it is hard to distinguish when you are serious, when you are taking the biscuit. Take above for instance. Are you saying that literal creationism (sorry again) is nonsense, stuff that lies outside ‘legitimate science and legitimate history’, while at the same time debunking thread after thread from those supposedly representing ‘legitimate science and legitimate history?’

The reason I say this is because one minute you are great back up, but now - I don’t know. You see I find most creationism is backed up with ‘legitimate science and legitimate history’, while those representing ‘legitimate science and legitimate history’ are the ones indulging in the metaphysical assumptions. Hope this is your position too?

Oh windfish, just so you don’t fell neglected, if life is found in acidic lakes, isn’t that just another example of God’s Omnipotence, nothing is impossible to Him.

 

[StAnastasia]

The reason I believe there was an Ark, and it exactly the size described in Genesis, in which the last eight persons on earth were saved, plus a load of animals for preservation, is because the Ark in Tradition is a symbol of Christ and His Church.

It’s a good symbol.

Now you expect Catholics to believe the ark was a boat in which a few people and their dogs.cats and chickens used to escape a local flood -** while millions elsewhere didn’t need saving?**

You can believe what you wish about the Ark myth. That doesn’t change the fact that there never was a global flood 29,035 feet deep. There never was an extinction of all land animals a few thousand years BCE. There never was a time when the population of Homo sapiens shrank to a genetic bottleneck of eight people.

StAnastasia

 

[johnpfmcguire]

Cassini, fear not: you are right in saying that I am occasionally cryptic. I am an obsessively attentive reader, and I often wrongly expect others to be equally obsessive.

The “creationist/literalist nonsense” reference was a quote (see original post where I said it) from someone who was complaining that the thread was being redirected. I was simply pleading innocence in order to deflect that, by comparison, petty insinuation. But I certainly didn’t, nor do I, affirm that it is indeed nonsense. I just try to meet others where they’re at, however the extreme boldness of their presentation of what is essentially science fiction may irk me on a personal level.

(I should stipulate that it would be nonsense to take the Bible literalistically [that is, read the Bible with our predisposed modern connotations and paradigms] but it is also nonsense not to take the Bible literally [that is, in view of what the words and phrases would have meant to the human author and the human audience at the time to the best of our knowledge though without any stretchy speculations].)

Basically I do side with Saint Thomas Aquinas who says the simplest interpretation is the best. I think there are Fundamentalist Pharisees today who think reason needs to be sacrificed to make room for faith, just as there are Eve-ish knowledge worshippers (better known in better ages as “Occultists”: Masons, Templars, Khazars, Illuminati and their neurotic outer-circle mind-slaves) who think science needs to be sacrificed to make room for reason. The true Catholic walks that balance beam (at times that tightrope).

I certainly didn’t mean to say on my part that creationism (or even literalism in the sense of literal but not literalistic) was nonsense. I would not be even a tiny little bit of a Catholic if I said that: on this point you and I are in complete accord. You speak so perfectly when you say, “I find most creationism is backed up with ‘legitimate science and legitimate history’, while those representing ‘legitimate science and legitimate history’ are the ones indulging in the metaphysical assumptions.” This goes not just for the creation account but all the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that Holy Mother Church accepted as the Canon of Scripture. So I could not agree more. I hope this allays your misgivings.

But let’s talk science to those who would talk science for the time being, since in that too the Catholic Church is naught lacking (as your username testifies so well!).

Saint Augustine, in his unfinished tome The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, “creavit omni simul” (“He created all things at once”), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally. At the same time, however, Augustine did not hold to an age of the earth of millions or more years. Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.

Saint Thomas Aquinas (the Angelic Doctor) affirms that what is important is, even were the universe’s time, say, infinite in span, that the universe’s existence depends on God. That is a bit philosophical. Remember that Thomas, though “Angelic,” was no astronomer like Cassini was.

 

[buffalo]

It’s a good symbol.

You can believe what you wish about the Ark myth. That doesn’t change the fact that there never was a global flood 29,035 feet deep. There never was an extinction of all land animals a few thousand years BCE. There never was a time when the population of Homo sapiens shrank to a genetic bottleneck of eight people.

StAnastasia

I do not think anyone claims the flood was 29000 plus feet deep.

 

[cassini]

Interesting discussion. Also entering in alongside faith are morals. What do I mean by this? We all know Newton’s dirty little secret, and this seems prevalent among his kind. It is clear how sexual deviancy, crackpot Occult science and drug abuse are “in three-way love” with each other. Thus it is small surprise when you find out about Newton’s personal life and the lives of his kind. Fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification John. Now let me back you up here with my own thoughts. I have done a deep study of Newton v Cassini. Unknown to the world they clashed on nearly everything scientific as well as religious. Newton’s worse crime was actually his Arianism.
Here now is an exchange that takes your position further.

‘Newton’s role in history was intellectual not moral leadership… For me at least, the recognition of his complexity as a man helps in understanding the price his genius exacted. I find it hard to reconcile the Principia with a plaster saint.’ — R. Westfall, op. cit., p.601.

In return we can add no more than give N.M. Gwynne’s reply:

‘This is the crux of the matter. It is the point at which it is vital to part company with Westfall. Probably in no century in the whole of history other than our own could a man have seriously suggested that leadership of any kind be separated from moral virtues…The point is that, even for strictly practical reasons alone, morals and intellect cannot be split neatly into two separate compartments with, as Westfall implies, the one having no connection with the other.
In the first place, once we know a man to be immoral and to be prepared to go to any lengths to better his own material position, we also know that there is at least as good a chance that he will be trying to lead us towards falsehood as towards truth…As we saw with Galileo, who used the demonstrably false argument that the phenomenon of the tides proved his theory of a heliocentric universe, an immoral man will be totally unscrupulous in his attempts to establish what he believes is true, and in this way he will not only deceive others but frequently also himself. Far from his moral character being irrelevant to his intellectual leadership, therefore, it is of the highest importance.’

I agree, so let me put it this way. If someone offered to sell you a car, telling you that it had a revolutionary engine (heliocentric) and worked like a dream (Principia), and you found out he was obsessed with alchemy; was a traitor to religion, king and country of birth, and was seen by some as one who took advantage of the charms of his niece to boot, would you buy it from him on trust?

 

[johnpfmcguire]

How dare you insert common sense into a discussion of ❝science❞? Just kidding. Bravissimo Cassini. :clapping:

 

[StAnastasia]

I do not think anyone claims the flood was 29000 plus feet deep.

Buffalo, Mt. Everest is 29,035 feet high. “Noah’s Flood” was fifteen cubits above the top of the highest peaks. The Himalaya range is about seventy million years old, and about fifty-five million years ago India began to crash directly into the Asian continent, raising the range. Mt. Everest is considerably younger – perhaps five million years old. “Noah’s Flood” was relatively recent – a few thousand years ago. Therefore, “Noah’s Flood” would have to have covered Everest. There is not enough water in the world to do that.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

While we’re on clarifications, Modernism is the denial of the supernatural.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, Mt. Everest is 29,035 feet high. “Noah’s Flood” was fifteen cubits above the top of the highest peaks. The Himalaya range is about seventy million years old, and about fifty-five million years ago India began to crash directly into the Asian continent, raising the range. Mt. Everest is considerably younger – perhaps five million years old. “Noah’s Flood” was relatively recent – a few thousand years ago. Therefore, “Noah’s Flood” would have to have covered Everest. There is not enough water in the world to do that.

They would counter that Mt Everest was pushed up during the flood.

There is enough water in the oceans to get to 9000 feet. Now we have found that many oceans more are in the subterranean rocks. Water is not the issue. There is plenty of it.

 

[johnpfmcguire]

On the one hand it is a pious thing to try to justfy Scripture to those who would discredit it. On the other hand, being above human reason, Scripture needs no justification. At best it may need explanation, but brevity is the soul of wit, intelligentibus pauca, etc., etc., etc.