Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teneas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crazzeto said:
Rather it would appear the person reading the passage in this particular case has used an erroneous literary sense.
Click to expand...
How can you tell that the literary sense they are using is erroneous? Is it erroneous to consider a story with a talking donkey the literal truth? Is it erroneous to consider a story that includes a talking snake (with legs) and two magic trees literally true?

What criteria are you using to classify the various Biblical passages as literal and non-literal?

rossum
 
wltdc said:
For your education…we didn’t “come from monkey’s”.

Human’s share a common ancestry with chimps. Our DNA is about a 98% match. In fact, we are more closely related to a chimp, than a chimp is to a gorilla. Their DNA match is about 97%.
Click to expand...
From: answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
  1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
  2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long. (*Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308-314.) *
  3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’ (Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432-1434). In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee.
  4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee. (*Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma 107:241-246. *)
  5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’ (Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y. 2002. ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134. )
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.
 
buffalo said:
In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

It took thousands of years for science to confirm what the very first line of Genesis stated.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t debating its literal accuracy or not. I was pointing out the clear poetic style. Genesis is loaded with poetic style and is famous for it among critics of style and form.
 
rossum said:
How can you tell that the literary sense they are using is erroneous? Is it erroneous to consider a story with a talking donkey the literal truth? Is it erroneous to consider a story that includes a talking snake (with legs) and two magic trees literally true?

What criteria are you using to classify the various Biblical passages as literal and non-literal?

rossum
Click to expand...
This is the criteria I use.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»
 
wltdc said:
For your education…we didn’t “come from monkey’s”.

The idea that there was 2 people who were the “first human’s” is unsupported by evolutionary biology. The change from primate to human was gradual and over a very, very long period of time.
Of course, the whole idea of a “god” implanting a “soul” in the first human is impossible as there was no “first human”. The changeover took place over millions of years.
It is flat out wrong for a religious person to claim that there were 2 first parents. The concept of “mitocondrial Eve” does not refer to 1 female at all. I’m not an expert in evolutionary biology, but I’m versed in the basic concepts.
The Genesis account is simply religious myth.
Click to expand...
For your education: Evolutionary Biology is taking a bunch of facts and developing a “theory” **Theory is not equal to fact! **So what you call science in this case is mearly supposition. Even the dating of objects is based on theory.
And truely you are not an expert in evolutionary biology with that I completely agree.

Lets say I find a coke bottle on top of mount Everest(fact) and a bottle cap in poland that says coke(fact) humm I also find traces of human urine in between(Fact). So my theory is that a polish man drinking a coke walked to mount Everest peeed along the way and left the bottle at the top. It is all based on facts so it must be true right???:rolleyes:

I will stand with the actual written word passed down through centuries in this case thanks. And I am so sorry for your blindness that you cannot see the beauty that God created.
 
Disciple4Christ said:
For your education: Evolutionary Biology is taking a bunch of facts and developing a “theory” **Theory is not equal to fact! **So what you call science in this case is mearly supposition. Even the dating of objects is based on theory.
And truely you are not an expert in evolutionary biology with that I completely agree.

Lets say I find a coke bottle on top of mount Everest(fact) and a bottle cap in poland that says coke(fact) humm I also find traces of human urine in between(Fact). So my theory is that a polish man drinking a coke walked to mount Everest peeed along the way and left the bottle at the top. It is all based on facts so it must be true right???:rolleyes:

I will stand with the actual written word passed down through centuries in this case thanks. And I am so sorry for your blindness that you cannot see the beauty that God created.
Click to expand...
Did you just wet all over a theory?😃
 
We forget,Darwin was wrong. Macroevolution is NOT supported by fossil records. Of all the fossils over the years, we have found NOTHING to supports it. Microevolution is a different subject.
 
“Theory is not equal to fact!”

Did you just make that up?

“A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.”


The word theory has several definitions. In the context of “theory of evolution”, the word doesn’t mean a “guess” or “hypothesis”.

Evolution is fact. To deny this is to be ignorant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top