Extraterrestrial Life

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217747' date='Mar 23 2007, 02:28 PM']How intelligent? As intelligent as a dolphin, human, or bovine?[/quote]

Why should it be limited? The Universe is very big.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217742' date='Mar 23 2007, 03:13 PM']Observations and experiments? Let's see...
Observation 1 - the atomic elements that make up the creatures of earth are not known to be unique only to this particular planet and would not jibe with what we can observe and surmise in our theories of the creation of the Universe.
Observation 2 - science has observed how certain conditions, chemicals, heat, etc., have created basic protiens which are the building blocks of life.
Observation 3 - given the numbers of observable galaxies, solar systems, and planets, and observable conditions here on earth that may be rare, but not unique, it is unreasonable to believe that these same conditions CANNOT occur elsewhere.[/quote]Observation 4: Evidence of life has not been observed outside of our planet.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217742' date='Mar 23 2007, 03:13 PM']There is more evidence and more logic to suggest that life may exist on other planets than logic and evidence to suggest that life is unique to Earth in all existence and the vastness of Creation. It is more problematical to defend a theory that Earthly life is completely unique, than rare or even common.[/quote]You may not find observation #4 compelling, but I really don't think your conclusions are any more than cheerleading. It is not "problematic" to believe that Earthly life is completely unique. It just happens to be the answer that the scientific method is providing us today. It's always subject to change if the proof exists, but we're talking about the observed universe.

Until we can actually see proof of life (i.e. anything from microbes to intelligent E.T.s), assigning a probability is just a shot in the dark. That's my only point.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217751' date='Mar 23 2007, 02:34 PM']Observation 4: Evidence of life has not been observed outside of our planet.
You may not find observation #4 compelling, but I really don't think your conclusions are any more than cheerleading. It is not "problematic" to believe that Earthly life is completely unique. It just happens to be the answer that the scientific method is providing us today. It's always subject to change if the proof exists, but we're talking about the observed universe.

Until we can actually see proof of life (i.e. anything from microbes to intelligent E.T.s), assigning a probability is just a shot in the dark. That's my only point.[/quote]

Self-replicating amino acids have been observed on one of the moons of Jupiter, and elsewhere in the solar system, I believe. That, according to scientific consensus, is how life on Earth began.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217751' date='Mar 23 2007, 03:34 PM']Until we can actually see proof of life (i.e. anything from microbes to intelligent E.T.s), assigning a probability is just a shot in the dark. That's my only point.[/quote]If I don't see it, it doesn't exist? We can't go to other solar systems and make observations of their conditions and chemical make-up so they don't exist.

We observed every point of light (or even a large percentage) and measured it's movement and have concluded that each of them is probably a star, not a shiney belt-buckle. Assigning a probablility is not just a 'shot in the dark'. Given that the Universe seems to be expanding from a single point, observations of light waves that give indication of similar chemical and atomic make up of other 'stars', how could the conditions of this blue orb be unique in all Creation. The more realistic question is really how rare or common Earth is.

Is God's love limited only to who God created on this particualar planet, or only to the Jews before Christ, or only to those who have been blessed to hear the Gospel with a mind and heart that hasn't been poisoned against Christianity by others or those giving a poor example of Christianity? There are many Christians who will believe that and tell you that all the Aztecs and Myans were born, lived, and died with no chance or faintest hope of ever knowing God in Heaven. They existed just to feed the animals and mine gold for later use by the Christians from Spain.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217756' date='Mar 23 2007, 01:51 PM']If I don't see it, it doesn't exist? We can't go to other solar systems and make observations of their conditions and chemical make-up so they don't exist.

We observed every point of light (or even a large percentage) and measured it's movement and have concluded that each of them is probably a star, not a shiney belt-buckle. Assigning a probablility is not just a 'shot in the dark'. Given that the Universe seems to be expanding from a single point, observations of light waves that give indication of similar chemical and atomic make up of other 'stars', how could the conditions of this blue orb be unique in all Creation. The more realistic question is really how rare or common Earth is.

Is God's love limited only to who God created on this particualar planet, or only to the Jews before Christ, or only to those who have been blessed to hear the Gospel with a mind and heart that hasn't been poisoned against Christianity by others or those giving a poor example of Christianity? There are many Christians who will believe that and tell you that all the Aztecs and Myans were born, lived, and died with no chance or faintest hope of ever knowing God in Heaven. They existed just to feed the animals and mine gold for later use by the Christians from Spain.[/quote]

Let me try to mediate:

Anomaly: there's a good chance that extraterrestrial life exists based on what we know about the universe.
Mateo el Feo: we haven't actually observed life outside of Earth.

You're both right, and in the case of Anomaly, can't really be proved wrong, so what are you arguing about? ;-)

[N/A Gone]

Ch. 7 of "Case for a creator" has an interesting angle here.

my fundi mom thinks that aliens are really demons and when we look and find them they are actually looking for earth to come get us

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217756' date='Mar 23 2007, 02:51 PM']If I don't see it, it doesn't exist? We can't go to other solar systems and make observations of their conditions and chemical make-up so they don't exist.[/quote]Anomaly, I think you're attacking a straw man. I did not say E.T. don't exist. Feel free to re-read my posts. I said that it is premature to attempt to assign a probability to such an existance.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217756' date='Mar 23 2007, 02:51 PM']We observed every point of light (or even a large percentage) and measured it's movement and have concluded that each of them is probably a star, not a shiney belt-buckle. Assigning a probablility is not just a 'shot in the dark'. Given that the Universe seems to be expanding from a single point, observations of light waves that give indication of similar chemical and atomic make up of other 'stars', how could the conditions of this blue orb be unique in all Creation. The more realistic question is really how rare or common Earth is.[/quote]Shiny belt-buckles aside, the "realistic question" is a good one. We can agree upon it. I just believe that the answer to the question is "to be determined", and you seem to think it's already answered (e.g. "probably", etc).

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217756' date='Mar 23 2007, 02:51 PM']Is God's love limited only to who God created on this particualar planet, or only to the Jews before Christ, or only to those who have been blessed to hear the Gospel with a mind and heart that hasn't been poisoned against Christianity by others or those giving a poor example of Christianity? There are many Christians who will believe that and tell you that all the Aztecs and Myans were born, lived, and died with no chance or faintest hope of ever knowing God in Heaven. They existed just to feed the animals and mine gold for later use by the Christians from Spain.[/quote]This whole Aztec/Mayan thing is a pretty emotional argument...and a demonstrably false one. The Spanish missionaries knew that Aztecs and Mayans (not to mention all humanity) were made in the image and likeness of God, and that they could be saved and enjoy eternal life. That's Christianity 101. In contrast, the Aztecs and Mayans thought that their gods wanted human sacrifices in exchange for a little more rain. Apparently, the rain gods even preferred their victims to be children.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Pre-Columbian_sacrifice"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifi...mbian_sacrifice[/url]

Are we done arguing by emotion? OK.

If you want to get into theological discussions of E.T. (e.g. your question, "Does God love ET?) , the real question isn't whether he/she/it exists. It is whether he/she/it is destined for eternal life. The existence of an eternal soul is a matter of faith. No scientific test is going to prove that animals or E.T. has an eternal soul. All the amino acids, proteins, and SETI experiments in the world aren't going to answer that question.

PS: thanks to Ken for being the mediator. Sadly, my stubborn side gets the best of me.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217778' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:54 PM']Anomaly, I think you're attacking a straw man. I did not say E.T. don't exist. Feel free to re-read my posts. I said that it is premature to attempt to assign a probability to such an existance.

Shiny belt-buckles aside, the "realistic question" is a good one. We can agree upon it. I just believe that the answer to the question is "to be determined", and you seem to think it's already answered (e.g. "probably", etc).

This whole Aztec/Mayan thing is a pretty emotional argument...and a demonstrably false one. The Spanish missionaries knew that Aztecs and Mayans (not to mention all humanity) were made in the image and likeness of God, and that they could be saved and enjoy eternal life. That's Christianity 101. In contrast, the Aztecs and Mayans thought that their gods wanted human sacrifices in exchange for a little more rain. Apparently, the rain gods even preferred their victims to be children.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Pre-Columbian_sacrifice"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifi...mbian_sacrifice[/url]

Are we done arguing by emotion? OK.

If you want to get into theological discussions of E.T. (e.g. your question, "Does God love ET?) , the real question isn't whether he/she/it exists. It is whether he/she/it is destined for eternal life. The existence of an eternal soul is a matter of faith. No scientific test is going to prove that animals or E.T. has an eternal soul. All the amino acids, proteins, and SETI experiments in the world aren't going to answer that question.

PS: thanks to Ken for being the mediator. Sadly, my stubborn side gets the best of me. [/quote]So what about the Myans and Aztecs in the centureis BEFORE the Spainish got there? It's not an emotion argument, but a practical argument from real life.

Ken,
The "argument" started when Mateo felt that it is/was pointless to even discuss this because he has issue with the hypothetical.

The core question is if there is 'intelligent' life, can they have an eternal soul or not? The Myans are a good example because they were a civilization that was seperated by geography and time, from any possibility of having any meaningful contact with Christianity. Christians tend to have a simplistic and myopic perspective that all humanity either was Jewish or rejected God, or after Christ, was Christian or rejected God. Maybe that is a valid and sound theological concept. Maybe not...

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217807' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:44 PM']So what about the Myans and Aztecs in the centureis BEFORE the Spainish got there? It's not an emotion argument, but a practical argument from real life.[/quote]OK, I think I understand your question. I just thought that the whole "Mayans are for tending sheep and mining gold" thing was a bit emotional.

To answer: unlike E.T., we know by faith that all of humanity (including Mayans and Aztecs) have eternal souls. If you want to discuss the fate of these souls, let's start by looking at a quote from an 1863 papal encyclical (highlights are mine):
[quote name='QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE' date=' POPE PIUS IX']Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. [b]There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion[/b]. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, [b]they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace[/b]. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.[/quote]Does that address your question?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217807' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:44 PM']Ken,
The "argument" started when Mateo felt that it is/was pointless to even discuss this because he has issue with the hypothetical.[/quote]I really think this is a warped presentation of our differences. I said it was premature to assign a probability to the existence of ET. Discuss what you like, but your arguments have done nothing to contradict my claim. Heck, prove me wrong: throw out a probability, and then use the scientific method to defend your value. (Note: I know this has been attempted in the past: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation"]link[/url].)

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217807' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:44 PM']The core question is if there is 'intelligent' life, can they have an eternal soul or not? The Myans are a good example because they were a civilization that was seperated by geography and time, from any possibility of having any meaningful contact with Christianity. Christians tend to have a simplistic and myopic perspective that all humanity either was Jewish or rejected God, or after Christ, was Christian or rejected God. Maybe that is a valid and sound theological concept. Maybe not...[/quote]The reason I don't think that the Mayan comparison is useful is that Christians have always believed that all humanity had eternal souls. Even if we found ET, we'd still have to ask if they had an eternal soul.

[jeffpugh]

What I'm really interested about is the controversy about crop-circles in this argument. People say that all are man-made, others say only some, and argue buy they way the crops are compressed and the complexity and congruency of the design. Other people say something such 'its lightning'.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217859' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:06 PM']The reason I don't think that the Mayan comparison is useful is that Christians have always believed that all humanity had eternal souls. Even if we found ET, we'd still have to ask if they had an eternal soul.[/quote]Why do Christians believe all humanity have eternal souls? Are eternal souls granted only to the direct physical genetic descendents of Adam and Eve? Isn't that kinda letting theology define scientific reality like Christian Literalists who think the Earth was created in 7 days and there is no evolution? Doesn't that also mean Cain and Able had to be incestuous with their sisters?
Or maybe God can work on a greater scale and at a point of His choosing, He started to bestow souls to His creatures at a point of their evolution of His choosing. Or maybe the story of Adam and Eve eating the 'apple' was more metaphorical, not literal. It wasn't so much the physical eating of the apple, but the spiritual choice of deciding to defy God when both were perfect and had never sinned? Hmmmm...

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1217774' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:33 PM']Ch. 7 of "Case for a creator" has an interesting angle here.

my fundi mom thinks that aliens are really demons and when we look and find them they are actually looking for earth to come get us[/quote]


That's what my dad says. Anything that is not of Earth is an alien, Angels, Demons, God, and of course born again believers.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Why do Christians believe all humanity have eternal souls?[/quote]Because the Bible says so. Do you believe that human beings have eternal souls?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Are eternal souls granted only to the direct physical genetic descendents of Adam and Eve?[/quote]That would make us a human family. Are you suggesting that humanity doesn't share a common ancestor?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Isn't that kinda letting theology define scientific reality like Christian Literalists who think the Earth was created in 7 days and there is no evolution?[/quote]Even St. Augustine looks at the 7 days as metaphorical. I don't believe in the "young earth" theory. At the same time, I don't think that we got eternal souls as a result of evolution.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Doesn't that also mean Cain and Able had to be incestuous with their sisters?[/quote]Yep.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Or maybe God can work on a greater scale and at a point of His choosing, He started to bestow souls to His creatures at a point of their evolution of His choosing.[/quote]So, you don't think that eternal souls are the mere product of evolution either?
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Or maybe the story of Adam and Eve eating the 'apple' was more metaphorical, not literal. It wasn't so much the physical eating of the apple, but the spiritual choice of deciding to defy God when both were perfect and had never sinned? Hmmmm...[/quote]Agreed. But, the important part of this story is: if humanity isn't all from the same parents, then Original Sin would only be inherited by a subset of humanity. That's why the Church maintains that we have a single set of "first parents".

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217899' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:46 PM']Because the Bible says so. Do you believe that human beings have eternal souls?[/quote]I'd like for you to point out the specific Scriptures that say that. I happen to believe humans have eternal souls from philosophical foundations of Christianity.

[quote]That would make us a human family. Are you suggesting that humanity doesn't share a common ancestor?[/quote]I do not believe that the 'human' family requires sharing of common DNA or ancestors. I am suggesting that humanity may not share 1 set of common parents, Adam and Eve. I happen to believe that God's grace and love that grants humans souls, intelligence, and free will, as well as other traits make us family.

[quote]Even St. Augustine looks at the 7 days as metaphorical. I don't believe in the "young earth" theory. At the same time, I don't think that we got eternal souls as a result of evolution.[/quote] Good for Auggie. I believe the bestowing of souls is solely the descretion of God and He has not necessarily restricted Himself to attaching souls to a certain arrangement of DNA.

[quote]Yep. [/quote]Quite a moral and scientific conundrum you've put yourself into. So God chose to utilize INCEST which seems to be a violation of Natual Law and thus, immoral, to temporarily be moral? I can't quite grasp the theological logic in that. And then how did we get the vast range of races in such a short biological period?

[quote]So, you don't think that eternal souls are the mere product of evolution either?[/quote]Not at all, not even dependent. God may have used evolution as a convenient tool to time when He wanted to grant souls.

[quote]Agreed. But, the important part of this story is: if humanity isn't all from the same parents, then Original Sin would only be inherited by a subset of humanity. That's why the Church maintains that we have a single set of "first parents".[/quote]I hope you didn't get a nose bleed when you realized you 'may' have agreed with a heretic. As far as the 'first parents', does that mean they have to be sperm and egg donor. God is our Father, yet He did not donate His DNA to the cause. Cannot A&E be parents in a spiritual sense. Imagine a group of Neanderthals living in a small society, not unlike a Lion Pride. At a certain point, God chose to bestow two persons, Adam and Eve, with souls at the moment of their conception. They were born and were graced with spiritual awareness, a conscience, and free will. They were more intellectually advanced than the rest. It was them that introduced awareness of God to the others who could have either had an awakening at God's discretion, or their offspring were born with souls AFTER A&E. They all lived in 'Eden', a place of innocence. A&E's choice to choose against what they knew was good and corrupt the innocence of their society would be the fall and introduce corruption to the souless and souled...

[Mateo el Feo]

Let me break out the responses...
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']Quite a moral and scientific conundrum you've put yourself into. So God chose to utilize INCEST which seems to be a violation of Natual Law and thus, immoral, to temporarily be moral? I can't quite grasp the theological logic in that.[/quote]According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, incest is only a violation of Natural Law in the first degree (parent-child). Further degrees of separation (e.g. siblings, etc) would be against Ecclesial Law. Quoting:[quote]It is certain that this crime has its distinctive enormity from the prohibition of the natural law, where there is question of the first degree in the direct line, for instance, between parents and children. For the other degrees it is probable that recourse must be had to the [u]ecclesiastical law[/u] which invalidates marriage within those limits.[/quote]Feel free to present contradictory evidence, if you would like.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']And then how did we get the vast range of races in such a short biological period?[/quote]What is the "short biological period" that you are assuming?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']I'd like for you to point out the specific Scriptures that say that. I happen to believe humans have eternal souls from philosophical foundations of Christianity.[/quote]Both Our Lord and Saint Paul confronted the Sadducees when they denied the resurrection of the dead. Quoting Luke 20:37-38:[quote]But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."[/quote]There are just so many references to eternal life (or damnation), that I'm having a hard time understanding why you think that the Bible doesn't teach about eternal souls.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']I do not believe that the 'human' family requires sharing of common DNA or ancestors. I am suggesting that humanity may not share 1 set of common parents, Adam and Eve. I happen to believe that God's grace and love that grants humans souls, intelligence, and free will, as well as other traits make us family.[/quote]That's fine. I'm just sharing with you how this related to Christian theology. If you don't accept Christianity, then I suppose you can believe anything you would like.

[quote]Good for Auggie. I believe the bestowing of souls is solely the descretion of God and He has not necessarily restricted Himself to attaching souls to a certain arrangement of DNA.[/quote]Shall I answer, "good for you"? I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this. Are you trying to suggest that there are non-human beings with eternal souls? I guess it's a topic we could daydream about, but I don't think we can move beyond pure speculation.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']Not at all, not even dependent. God may have used evolution as a convenient tool to time when He wanted to grant souls.[/quote]I suppose so.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']I hope you didn't get a nose bleed when you realized you 'may' have agreed with a heretic.[/quote]Confused. My nose seems OK. Who's the heretic? (BTW, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with a heretic. We just can't agree with a heresy!)

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']As far as the 'first parents', does that mean they have to be sperm and egg donor. God is our Father, yet He did not donate His DNA to the cause. Cannot A&E be parents in a spiritual sense.[/quote]God is not our physical father. And we are physical children of A&E (i.e. biologically descended from them).

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']Imagine a group of Neanderthals living in a small society, not unlike a Lion Pride. At a certain point, God chose to bestow two persons, Adam and Eve, with souls at the moment of their conception. They were born and were graced with spiritual awareness, a conscience, and free will. They were more intellectually advanced than the rest. It was them that introduced awareness of God to the others who could have either had an awakening at God's discretion, or their offspring were born with souls AFTER A&E. They all lived in 'Eden', a place of innocence. A&E's choice to choose against what they knew was good and corrupt the innocence of their society would be the fall and introduce corruption to the souless and souled...[/quote]I don't know if I'm ready to sign up to every detail of your hypothetical; but I think I could agree with the general story, and that it is compatible with Christian Theology. That's my layman's view...subject to correction, of course.

Edited March 24, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217931' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:25 PM']Let me break out the responses...
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, incest is only a violation of Natural Law in the first degree (parent-child). Further degrees of separation (e.g. siblings, etc) would be against Ecclesial Law. Quoting:Feel free to present contradictory evidence, if you would like.
What is the "short biological period" that you are assuming?[/quote]All I can say about sibling incest is EWWW. I also don't think that the American Catholic Encyclopedia which merely reflects the current Roman Catholic Church opinion is the final say on Natural law. Since I'm not claiming to be a Roman Catholic, I don't feel compelled to place my will and intellect into submission the current whims about Science to the RC Church. There are genetic problems with in-breeding so scientifically, extensive inbreeding does not seem likely or probable without us all being hemopheliacs playing banjos on a bridge in Georgia.
A short biological period meaning the few thousand years that Literalists who believe any evolution is impossible. But let's give it some more time. I have long lost reference to the body of work, but I've read papers that extrapolated current rates of successful biological mutation backwards and came up with a time frame that well exceeded the life of our solar system. This not only blew apart the theory of pure evolution, but gave creedence to a directed evolution. Granted, there exists the possibility that DNA did reach an evolutionary point that decreased the rate of mutation. But an increased rate of mutation still ran into the problem of working with a large enough number of the species to survive the percentage of mutations that 'fail' and are not better equipped to survive.
Given what we currently know about Genetics and the human genome and the recessive traits that can quickly appear in a few generations that render a species weak and undermines the adaptablility, an even greater amount of time is needed to start with a very small gene pool that must survive inbreeding long enough to then create a gene pool large enough to then mutate sufficiently into successful races. Quite a stretch, don't you think?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217942' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:06 PM']Shall I answer, "good for you"? I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this. Are you trying to suggest that there are non-human beings with eternal souls? I guess it's a topic we could daydream about, but I don't think we can move beyond pure speculation.[/quote]Well, that is the crux of our disagreement. I do not believe God has to limit His will and love to only us humans. I don't see evidence of conscience or souls in the animals around us, here on earth, but I don't feel that human's need for a Religion that depends on exclusivity to relate to the God of All Creation, is necessarily accurate. I rate it right up there with the Church clergy condemning Copernicus and his ilk, who theorized the Earth traveling around the Sun contradicting the Church's understanding of God and humanity's realationship with Him. Just as I am spiritually your brother because God claims us as His children, I am sibling to each and every other sentient being (human or otherwise) God has deemed fit (in His perfect judgement) as Creator of All, to bestow as soul and conscience to. I reject the hubris that the Roman Catholic Church knows all there is to know about God. God surely ensures we can all know what we NEED to know (and sometimes are graced with more), but humans can barely fathom being aware of EVERYTHING on our pitiful planet, much less fathom God who is aware, intenional and on-line in realtime with every nuance of Existence.
I'd much rather believe God has got things figured out and that humanity will be able to wrap their mind around the magnitude of His Love if we do encounter sentinent persons from elsewhere. It shouldn't be much more of a theological problem than finding people in the New World here.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217944' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:15 PM']All I can say about sibling incest is EWWW. I also don't think that the American Catholic Encyclopedia which merely reflects the current Roman Catholic Church opinion is the final say on Natural law. Since I'm not claiming to be a Roman Catholic, I don't feel compelled to place my will and intellect into submission the current whims about Science to the RC Church. There are genetic problems with in-breeding so scientifically, extensive inbreeding does not seem likely or probable without us all being hemopheliacs playing banjos on a bridge in Georgia.[/quote]Is this an appeal to reason? Anyway, I promise you that the Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't the first to figure out that Adam and Eve's children would have to marry each other to "get the species going." But, even after it got going, Abraham took Sarah, his half-sister as his wife. It was Mosaic Law (i.e. Leviticus) which was first to prohibit sibling incest. So this whole "Natural Law" vs. "Ecclesiatical Law" thing (as it relates to incest) predates Christianity.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can't speak for the Catholic Church. I would appreciate, though, if you did not misrepresent Catholic Teachings as whimsical.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217944' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:15 PM']A short biological period meaning the few thousand years that Literalists who believe any evolution is impossible. But let's give it some more time. I have long lost reference to the body of work, but I've read papers that extrapolated current rates of successful biological mutation backwards and came up with a time frame that well exceeded the life of our solar system. This not only blew apart the theory of pure evolution, but gave creedence to a directed evolution.[/quote]OK, so that's "Intelligent Design"?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217963' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:56 PM']Is this an appeal to reason? Anyway, I promise you that the Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't the first to figure out that Adam and Eve's children would have to marry each other to "get the species going." But, even after it got going, Abraham took Sarah, his half-sister as his wife. It was Mosaic Law (i.e. Leviticus) which was first to prohibit sibling incest. So this whole "Natural Law" vs. "Ecclesiatical Law" thing (as it relates to incest) predates Christianity.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can't speak for the Catholic Church. I would appreciate, though, if you did not misrepresent Catholic Teachings as whimsical.

OK, so that's "Intelligent Design"?[/quote]You're welcome. Feel free to be appreciative, but please don't demand that I not choose to consider certain opinions of the Roman Catholic Church as being merely the perponderance of current opinion. I'm not about to ask the RC Church to give me their opinion whether or not Global Warming is really an immediate crisis or not.

I don't know if I would characterize what I read as 'Intelligent Design', but it was more supportive of 'Directed Evolution'. I dabbled in theortical math concepts and was beyond my current pay grade. It discussed correlations with mathematical functions that seemingly creates random numbers but graphing would create recognizable designs such as fractals. Again, the problems lie with the amount of varience that would still lie within the logical prameters of the fractal giving the possible iterations that may occur. Please forgive my inablility to fully understand or explain it all since I'm not well educated and do the best I can with a high school diploma.