A little confused about evolution, Adam/Eve, and the RCC

[Wesrock]

If the first life on earth was algae how long did it take for that to evolve ?

It wasn’t and your question is irrelevant anyway.

 

[rossum]

If the first life on earth was algae how long did it take for that to evolve ?

Strictly speaking biological evolution only started after the first life appeared. Before then it was a chemical process, studied as abiogenesis.

Algae were not the first life, since they have photosynthesis, which only appeared well after the start at about the time of the Great Oxygenation Event, about one billion years after life first appeared. The first life would have been extremely primitive and probably chemotrophic (feeding on chemicals) rather than phototrophic (using photosynthesis).

For the initial development of life, look for papers on abiogenesis. Currently deep sea vents are looking like a good bet for the origin of life, though this may change as more is discovered.

The process probably took about 500 million years. The Late Heavy Bombardment ended about 3.8 billion years ago and the first signs of life appear about 500 million years after that.

rossum

 

[Wesrock]

I do believe that God created Adam as a entirely new species… whether using an ape or not is really not my concern, but I do think the Eve question needs answering. As I said, I don’t believe it’s to indicate equality, unless you mean in dignity.

I think the creation from Adam’s rib statement could still be taken very much literally, if one wishes, given everything else I said and as described in my original post.

 

[grannymh]

Strictly speaking biological evolution only started after the first life appeared. Before then it was a chemical process, studied as abiogenesis.

Algae were not the first life, since they have photosynthesis, which only appeared well after the start at about the time of the Great Oxygenation Event, about one billion years after life first appeared. The first life would have been extremely primitive and probably chemotrophic (feeding on chemicals) rather than phototrophic (using photosynthesis).

For the initial development of life, look for papers on abiogenesis. Currently deep sea vents are looking like a good bet for the origin of life, though this may change as more is discovered.

The process probably took about 500 million years. The Late Heavy Bombardment ended about 3.8 billion years ago and the first signs of life appear about 500 million years after that.

rossum

Hi Rossum,

Glad to see you here.
granny

 

[Techno2000]

So Adam’s parent was a pile of dust?

Mix Soil dust and water together and you get clay, and we all know what you can do with clay… especially in God’s hands.

 

[Techno2000]

The process probably took about 500 million years. The Late Heavy Bombardment ended about 3.8 billion years ago and the first signs of life appear about 500 million years after that.

rossum

So, it took about 4,000,000,000 years for life to finally get started ?

 

[EveningSkye111]

I’m sorry, this post is too time consuming so I’ll just stick to Genesis & I believe I can’t go wrong.

Amen to that! How can anyone doubt the Bible?

 

[twf]

Which catechism? There lies the problem. Saying the catechism has been ‘revised’ to include ‘new’ revelation (atheistic scientific research) simply means it’s been altered. Fatally so.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson5.htm

Luckily for the church there is an Apostolate whose sole purpose is restore the traditional teaching of the church (magesterium). It was prayerfully placed under the protection of St. Maximilian Kolbe, who by the way, believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis and the creation account. kolbecenter.org

**The **Catechism of the Catholic Church is what was quoted earlier in this thread. The same Catechism St. John Paul II declared to be a “sure norm” for the teaching of the faith. The same Catechism that the bishops of the world, the successors of the Apostles, have embraced as a teaching document of the Magisterium.
The Baltimore Catechism was never more than a local catechism.

 

[twf]

So, you reckon that God just used an ape and breathed the soul into it to create Adam? Don’t you trust in God’s ability to create mankind as well as animals? Or are you further suggesting that he created a simple organism which evolved into all species?

We’re told that God created Adam from dust. See Genesis 2:7, Genesis 3:19, Job 10:8-12, Psalm 103:13-14, Ecclesiastes 3:20, Ecclesiastes 12:7 etc.

Let’s face it, you’re restricting God’s ability to create life quite a bit. But let’s run with it for a moment… you could probably reason that the dust was an ape already, but what about Eve then? We’re told that Eve was created from Adam, as there was no suitable helper among God’s creatures, already. Genesis 2:21-24. So, if Eve was created from Adam, himself, how do you reckon this was done? You can’t use another ape as this won’t be from Adam.

The Church and the Church alone interprets Scripture. Not you, not me. The Church’s interpretation of Genesis was quoted earlier in this thread.
Why aren’t all of us made glorious saints, enthroned in heaven, the moment we’re baptized? Aren’t we limiting God’s ability to redeem and glorify?
God does things in His own way for His own reasons.

 

[twf]

Everyday Darwin’s theory of Evolution of is being shot down, because it’s seriously flawed .

youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

youtube.com/watch?v=UKyyaURZW-o

You can find people on the fringe who will claim the earth is flat. The vast majority of the world’s biologists know the evidence is beyond dispute. Details are up in the air, of course, but not the general process itself. We have seen new species emerge before our eyes…evolution is a fact…its happening right now…its observable. In terms of what came before us, you can see it in the fossil record…layer upon layer…thousands and thousands of fossils that clearly proclaim one story. There is no doubt…and the Church, the Magisterium, understands this. No, evolution isn’t a doctrine of faith…its a matter of science. But the Catechism and recent popes encourage us to embrace science, the fruit of the gift of reason which God gave to us.
This is an American Evangelical fascination… it is not befitting of Catholics.

I was a young earth creationist too… as an Evangelical Protestant. Then I found the Lord’s Church and realized that Christians are not called to reject modern science and reason.

 

[Richca]

So I understand that many Catholics and members of other denominations accept evolution as a plausible theory to the development of species and all.

Catholics are free to have an opinion either way, for or against, the theory of evolution to the development of species in some manner. In regard to human beings, the Church does not exclude the possibility that God may have used some pre-existent living matter in the formation of the first man Adam’s body, but God alone immediately creates the immortal spiritual soul of each and every human being and infuses it into the body with the consequence that God immediately created the first man, Adam. Then God took some living flesh from Adam and formed the first woman Eve’s body from it and infused into it a human soul.

I understand that when talking about “death” being the wages of sin, this was referring to more of a “death of the spirit” kind of thing, if that’s a proper term to use.

 

[Blacksword]

You can find people on the fringe who will claim the earth is flat. The vast majority of the world’s biologists know the evidence is beyond dispute. Details are up in the air, of course, but not the general process itself. We have seen new species emerge before our eyes…evolution is a fact…its happening right now…its observable. In terms of what came before us, you can see it in the fossil record…layer upon layer…thousands and thousands of fossils that clearly proclaim one story. There is no doubt…and the Church, the Magisterium, understands this. No, evolution isn’t a doctrine of faith…its a matter of science. But the Catechism and recent popes encourage us to embrace science, the fruit of the gift of reason which God gave to us.
This is an American Evangelical fascination… it is not befitting of Catholics.

I was a young earth creationist too… as an Evangelical Protestant. Then I found the Lord’s Church and realized that Christians are not called to reject modern science and reason.

This, very very on point!

More to the point; I think the OP’s question has been answered, and again I would ask that posters wishing to derail the thread into a forum for displaying rejection of scientific fact, reason, and generally living in a willful, self-imposed state of benightedness leave the thread alone. Grind that axe somewhere else. The poster asked about specific issues in trying to harmonize evolutionary science and Catholic theology. Launching into fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis is akin to me coming on here and asking for a really good cake recipe and having people respond “Why? Cake is horrible and stupid, just make mud pies instead!”

 

[grannymh]

Confused about evolution???

What is the difference between evolution science per se and the Science of Human Evolution? And why is this knowledge so important to the Catholic Church?
Readers who think that the Catholic Church approves and encourages science may be surprised that the Catholic Church does not approve the Science of Human Evolution.

At least one person on this thread knows the basic facts of evolution theory. Readers may be surprised that it is the basic theory of how evolution operates which intersects with Catholic doctrines.

 

[truetofaith]

You won’t read the Church’s own Catechism? Sticking with Genesis without the magisterium? You can go very very very wrong indeed. This was the fatal error that birthed Protestantism.

I guess I’m protestant & don’t know it.

My Catholic Bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth, after all the animals were made.
It doesn’t say He took an animal or anything else.

 

[Blacksword]

I guess I’m protestant & don’t know it.

My Catholic Bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth, after all the animals were made.
It doesn’t say He took an animal or anything else.

Fun fact: “dust of the earth” is actually a very rich, deep metaphorical phrase in ancient near eastern/Hebrew culture that in no way means “dirt”. The Magisterium is aware of this fact, but the typical fundamentalist loons who read Genesis in English, in a wooden fashion, and coming at it with ZERO understanding or awareness of these important cultural connotations in expressive language are, of course, blissfully unaware.

Do you suppose the actual intent of the author and the linguistic modes and idioms an author employs are important in getting at the meaning of the text they write? Does complete ignorance of these factors make one prone to drastically misunderstand meaning?

 

[grannymh]

Do you suppose the actual intent of the author and the linguistic modes and idioms an author employs are important in getting at the meaning of the text they write? Does complete ignorance of these factors make one prone to drastically misunderstand meaning?

And what, pray tell, is the actual intent(s) of the author of the first three fascinating chapters of Sacred Scripture?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I guess I’m protestant & don’t know it.

My Catholic Bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth, after all the animals were made.
It doesn’t say He took an animal or anything else.

Not according to Genesis 2 where God creates man before animals.

1. The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him. 19. So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.

20 The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.

 

[Blacksword]

And what, pray tell, is the actual intent(s) of the author of the first three fascinating chapters of Sacred Scripture?

Well they most definitely were NOT trying to write a scientific treatise or a historical documentary, so there’s that…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

And what, pray tell, is the actual intent(s) of the author of the first three fascinating chapters of Sacred Scripture?

That God exists. That God created all things in an orderly fashion. That all things created are good, That God cares for humans in s special way giving them higher functions and responsibilities. That humans chooses to follow their own will rather than obey the will of God. That humans fall into temptation. That when humans disobey there are consequences. If it is true that these writings were assembled about the time of the return from the Babylonian exile they would also be a way to gather the nation and begin again in the homeland.

Just a few ideas on the intentions of the authors.

 

[grannymh]

Well they most definitely were NOT trying to write a scientific treatise or a historical documentary, so there’s that…

Now that you have presented the NOT…
Thank you.

When looking for the intention of the talented author of the first three very important chapters of Sacred Scripture, it is necessary that readers use their own brain. This means individual intellectual work including the Index of Citations, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, starting on page 689.

The major reason that some current readers deny the historical aspect is because they do not want to accept some of the basic truths found in the beginning of human history.