10,000

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHRISTINE77 said:
I was thinking the same thing! Just how did these 10,000 people spontaneously arise?:confused:
Click to expand...
They didn’t. Again, populations evolve. Not individuals. Very slow genetic drift through a large population over time. The prior population came from prior populations which came from… well, you get it, back to the first sexually reproducing creatures, and before that back to the first cell.

Not ruling God out (impossible to do that), but evolution doesn’t claim that these earlier populations suddenly appeared out of nowhere to evolve into new species.

Anyway, I probably said more than is allowed under current rules, anyway.
 
Faith1960 said:
We can’t discuss that here.
Click to expand...
Indeed, no need to discuss those details here.

While not a discussion-type blog, answers to questions about where the 5-10k pre-humans came from, etc. are available from this and this among several good Catholic sources.

By the way, discussions about incest, bestiality, etc. arose surrounding the origins of humanity based on careful reading of the Genesis accounts dating back to the origins of Christianity, and perhaps earlier given that Genesis was an integral part of the Hebrew bible long before the start of Christianity. Certainly the details of those debates differ from current debates, because the secular/scientific knowledge of their day differs from that of today. But questions about, for example, who Cain took as his wife and of whom he had reason to be afraid after he murdered his brother Abel, and what those mysterious giants were, etc. - those questions long predate any concept of the topic banned from this forum!
 
Wesrock said:
They didn’t. Again, populations evolve. Not individuals. Very slow genetic drift through a large population over time. The prior population came from prior populations which came from… well, you get it, back to the first sexually reproducing creatures, and before that back to the first cell.

Not ruling God out (impossible to do that), but evolution doesn’t claim that these earlier populations suddenly appeared out of nowhere to evolve into new species.

Anyway, I probably said more than is allowed under current rules, anyway.
Click to expand...
How can “populations arise”. This is a bunch of baloney.
 
Listen, if you can’t discuss evolution here, I think you are really walking a fine line here, and it’s really a meaningless thread.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Listen, if you can’t discuss evolution here, I think you are really walking a fine line here, and it’s really a meaningless thread.
Click to expand...
Not really. I don’t want discussions about that. I just want logical answers to my questions.
 
cfauster said:
The 5-10K biological ancestors:
  • did not suddenly come from zero.
  • were not behaviorally and theologically human beings in the Kemp/Austriaco scenario.
Here is Kemp’s summary of his proposal, essentially the same as Austriaco’s and Feser’s, as far as I can tell:

“That account can begin with a population of about 5,000 hominids, beings which are in many respects like human beings, but which lack the capacity for intellectual thought. Out of this population, God selects two and endows them with intellects by creating for them rational souls, giving them at the same time those preternatural gifts the possession of which constitutes original justice. Only beings with rational souls (with or without the preternatural gifts) are truly human. The first two theologically human beings misuse their free will, however, by choosing to commit a (the original) sin, thereby losing the preternatural gifts, though not the offer of divine friendship by virtue of which they remain theologically (not just philosophically) distinct from their merely biologically human ancestors and cousins. These first true human beings also have descendants, which continue, to some extent, to interbreed with the non-intellectual hominids among whom they live. If God endows each individual that has even a single human ancestor with an intellect of its own, a reasonable rate of reproductive success and a reasonable selective advantage would easily replace a non-intellectual hominid population of 5,000 individuals with a philosophically (and, if the two concepts are extensionally equivalent, theologically) human population within three centuries. Throughout this process, all theologically human beings would be descended from a single original human couple (in the sense of having that human couple among their ancestors) without there ever having been a population bottleneck in the human species.”
Click to expand...
If one lacks the capacity for human thought, and it is like a human (ape, monkey etc) it is viewed as a purely “sentient being” The rational soul is believed to be directly infused into the body by God. It is a body initially designed by God to receive a rational (spiritual) soul, the principle of intellectual and volitional activity, and it is also the form of the body which makes the body a human body. This principle could not evolve in segments eg. some hominids would possess partial spiritual souls and therefore partial rational intellectual and volitional powers,the principle “you can not give that which you do not possess” applies To inter-breed humans with hominids could never produce a human, the rational spiritual soul is not transmitted from one being to another.

It also produces a theological problem, the message of salvation for mankind. If there were never no less than lo,ooo humans on earth, that assumes that many were brought into existence at the same time, or even sequentially. Who was male, and who was female? And if they were all in the state of sanctifying grace, did they all fall, even though they were capable of falling? We do have free will don’t we? That means that possibly some may not have fallen, and remained in the state of sanctifying grace, yet we believe all are sinners, and Christ came to redeem all of mankind. The limitedness or finiteness and fallibility of humans is evident in all races. We share an individual uniqueness, and a common humanity.
 
cfauster said:
Indeed, no need to discuss those details here.

While not a discussion-type blog, answers to questions about where the 5-10k pre-humans came from, etc. are available from this and this among several good Catholic sources.

By the way, discussions about incest, bestiality, etc. arose surrounding the origins of humanity based on careful reading of the Genesis accounts dating back to the origins of Christianity, and perhaps earlier given that Genesis was an integral part of the Hebrew bible long before the start of Christianity. Certainly the details of those debates differ from current debates, because the secular/scientific knowledge of their day differs from that of today. But questions about, for example, who Cain took as his wife and of whom he had reason to be afraid after he murdered his brother Abel, and what those mysterious giants were, etc. - those questions long predate any concept of the topic banned from this forum!
Click to expand...
Those sites aren’t loyal to the Magesterium though or are they?

Two things are for certain. Fr. Austriaco is a SMART guy, and the second thing is I think he’s smarter than my priest.
 
ynotzap said:
If one lacks the capacity for human thought, and it is like a human (ape, monkey etc) it is viewed as a purely “sentient being” The rational soul is believed to be directly infused into the body by God. It is a body initially designed by God to receive a rational (spiritual) soul, the principle of intellectual and volitional activity, and it is also the form of the body which makes the body a human body. This principle could not evolve in segments eg. some hominids would possess partial spiritual souls and therefore partial rational intellectual and volitional powers,the principle “you can not give that which you do not possess” applies To inter-breed humans with hominids could never produce a human, the rational spiritual soul is not transmitted from one being to another.

It also produces a theological problem, the message of salvation for mankind. If there were never no less than lo,ooo humans on earth, that assumes that many were brought into existence at the same time, or even sequentially. Who was male, and who was female? And if they were all in the state of sanctifying grace, did they all fall, even though they were capable of falling? We do have free will don’t we? That means that possibly some may not have fallen, and remained in the state of sanctifying grace, yet we believe all are sinners, and Christ came to redeem all of mankind. The limitedness or finiteness and fallibility of humans is evident in all races. We share an individual uniqueness, and a common humanity.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read Monkey in Your Soul? by Edward Feser? He explains just this very well, too.
 
cfauster said:
Indeed, no need to discuss those details here.

While not a discussion-type blog, answers to questions about where the 5-10k pre-humans came from, etc. are available from this and this among several good Catholic sources.

By the way, discussions about incest, bestiality, etc. arose surrounding the origins of humanity based on careful reading of the Genesis accounts dating back to the origins of Christianity, and perhaps earlier given that Genesis was an integral part of the Hebrew bible long before the start of Christianity. Certainly the details of those debates differ from current debates, because the secular/scientific knowledge of their day differs from that of today. But questions about, for example, who Cain took as his wife and of whom he had reason to be afraid after he murdered his brother Abel, and what those mysterious giants were, etc. - those questions long predate any concept of the topic banned from this forum!
Click to expand...
Do you have links to any more sources?
 
Faith1960 said:
Those sites aren’t loyal to the Magesterium though or are they?

Two things are for certain. Fr. Austriaco is a SMART guy, and the second thing is I think he’s smarter than my priest.
Click to expand...
I shouldn’t say he’s smarter than my priest, my priest is smart, but Fr. Austriaco is better educated.
 
Faith1960 said:
Those sites aren’t loyal to the Magesterium though or are they?

Two things are for certain. Fr. Austriaco is a SMART guy, and the second thing is I think he’s smarter than my priest.
Click to expand...
I shouldn’t say he’s smarter than my priest, my priest is smart, but Fr. Austriaco is better educated.
 
Faith1960 said:
Do you have links to any more sources?
Click to expand...
If you mean besides the one the Dominicans (including Austriaco) created, and the on-line encyclopedia in Rome (Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science), both of which you’ve already probably seen from links in my previous posts in this thread, then here are two more I discovered thanks to posts by other people here on CAF:

tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

http://www.strangenotions.com/science/evolution/
 
I would note that as God chose the Jews to carry his commandments, so too He could have chose Adam and Eve. After the evolution of humans into what he wanted he could have taken two as the example of humans. They were given the chance. Much as the jews began idol worship etc… Adam and Eve the chosen ones of humanity broke their only rule, and therefore failed their test for humans. Not saying this is what happened, but even if there were a million humans before Adam and Eve, He could have found them at a point where it was time to put them in the garden of eden and test their faith. How many humans need to prove failure for the fall? They could have been the first that had the capacity to follow God but chose not too listen to their one commandment.
 
cfauster said:
If you mean besides the one the Dominicans (including Austriaco) created, and the on-line encyclopedia in Rome (Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science), both of which you’ve already probably seen from links in my previous posts in this thread, then here are two more I discovered thanks to posts by other people here on CAF:

tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

http://www.strangenotions.com/science/evolution/
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
LethalMouse said:
I would note that as God chose the Jews to carry his commandments, so too He could have chose Adam and Eve. After the evolution of humans into what he wanted he could have taken two as the example of humans.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Faith1960 said:
The only problem I have is Austriaco believes in polygenism. He showed me where it was written in a Vatican paper, International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship, ((paragraph 70) and we aren’t supposed to believe in it.

It says “Catholic theology affirms that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.”

This is from the Vatican so I’m really confused since everything I’ve read and heard from my priest said we can’t believe in polygenism.
Click to expand...
I think the International Theological Commission is wiser and more knowledgeable than my parish priest.so I guess we can believe in polygenism or not. We can believe that two people were chosen among a group of non human creatures and given souls, making them human. Or we can believe Adam and Eve were specially created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top