Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[larkin31]

However, the proof is in the pudding --which is what I pointed out. There are no branches on Darwin’s “tree of life” named “possibility of God.” …

What?

Nevermind. Have a good day.

 

[StAnastasia]

You win! Lights flashing - finally. Yes indeed many geologic formations are formed by catastrophic events such as floods. So it is now quite evident that uniformatism is not the whole story.

Of course it’s not the whole story. The Chicxulub bollide impact scientists could have told you that.

 

[buffalo]

Of course it’s not the whole story. The Chicxulub bollide impact scientists could have told you that.

But you didn’t know/believe it until I posted it several times and you checked with your working geologists. Now you do. So that is an important step in your education.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

I appreciate all these replies. They conform well to Catholic teachings on the subject.

Look, I know these teachings are hard to accept because of the level of self-restraint that they entail, however, I believe that the Church teaches the truth about these issues and I’ve found that with grace and experience one comes to see how beautiful these teachings are. Life is complicated and sometimes the Church for that reason appears as nothing more than a rigid rule enforcer, but the Church is the Rock that never compromises it’s essential teaching throughout the ages. There has never been a time in Christian history when a substantial portion of the Christian population was not under the sway of some popular heresy (gnosticism, doceticism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, Montanism, Pelagianism, Catharism, Jansenism, Gallicanism…the list goes on and on.) But even when much of the clergy have fallen into error, the Chair of Peter and the ecumenical councils have never fallen away and the Church continues to survive the “jaws of death” (Matt 16:18-20) as Christ promised it would. No matter how bad things look for the orthodox faith, no matter how powerful the enemy or the degree of scandal, it is always always the Catholic Church that survives while its enemies founder.

For what it’s worth, there are some areas where I sometimes don’t quite see the Church’s position, but I choose to follow her anyway. Why? Because Christ founded her and he preserves her. If something needs to be changed or developed, he’ll take care of it.

I would sort of like to return to the original subject, which is the literal existence of Adam and Eve. I personally believe in evolution and in the evolution of the man (although I haven’t always.) It seems that most of the Catholics on this thread feel that human evolution is irreconcilable with Revelation. Could someone please explain, in an orderly manner, precisely what your concerns are in this area?

 

[larkin31]

Look, I know these teachings are hard to accept because of the level of self-restraint that they entail, …

The teachings are difficult to accept for several reasons; this is not an accurate summary of them. Self-restraint is frequently a very good thing, including in sexuality. That the RCC (and some other churches) have so many rules and prescriptions around sex (including in the Bible) is a very curious thing to me. Types of partners, types of sex, condition of partner are all commented on and proscripted. I don’t even consider it so much about “restraint” at all.

But yes, we can move on. It would be a fascinating thread topic, though: sex and religious morality.

 

[grannymh]

Look, I know these teachings are hard to accept because of the level of self-restraint that they entail, however, I believe that the Church teaches the truth about these issues and I’ve found that with grace and experience one comes to see how beautiful these teachings are. Life is complicated and sometimes the Church for that reason appears as nothing more than a rigid rule enforcer, but the Church is the Rock that never compromises it’s essential teaching throughout the ages. There has never been a time in Christian history when a substantial portion of the Christian population was not under the sway of some popular heresy (gnosticism, doceticism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, Montanism, Pelagianism, Catharism, Jansenism, Gallicanism…the list goes on and on.) But even when much of the clergy have fallen into error, the Chair of Peter and the ecumenical councils have never fallen away and the Church continues to survive the “jaws of death” (Matt 16:18-20) as Christ promised it would. No matter how bad things look for the orthodox faith, no matter how powerful the enemy or the degree of scandal, it is always always the Catholic Church that survives while its enemies founder.

For what it’s worth, there are some areas where I sometimes don’t quite see the Church’s position, but I choose to follow her anyway. Why? Because Christ founded her and he preserves her. If something needs to be changed or developed, he’ll take care of it.

I would sort of like to return to the original subject, which is the literal existence of Adam and Eve. I personally believe in evolution and in the evolution of the man (although I haven’t always.) It seems that most of the Catholics on this thread feel that human evolution is irreconcilable with Revelation. Could someone please explain, in an orderly manner, precisely what your concerns are in this area?

Thank you for doing an excellent job with posts.

I, too, believe in evolution, with the exception of the human species. Nonetheless, I do have wiggle room regarding evolutionary theory of pre-humans. For a year, I have been posting about the reality of Adam and Eve as the two sole parents of the human species. Lately, I have been reviewing evolutionary based research/literature regarding the origin of the human species along with reviewing the* Catechism of the Catholic Church*. As a totally undisciplined writer, there is not much hope that I will ever present material in an “orderly manner.” However, I will jump in when I can.

For many, many reasons, it is important to affirm the reality of Adam and Eve. This Lent I have started a thread about the relationship of Adam and Lent 2010 in Apologetics. However, since the topics of evolution/atheism are currently banned in both Apologetics and Philosophy forums, one’s posts need to respect this ban.
See sticky notes at top of these forums for complete information. Hint–at all costs, maintain courtesy and charity.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Thank you for doing an excellent job with posts.

I, too, believe in evolution, with the exception of the human species. Nonetheless, I do have wiggle room regarding evolutionary theory of pre-humans. For a year, I have been posting about the reality of Adam and Eve as the two sole parents of the human species. Lately, I have been reviewing evolutionary based research/literature regarding the origin of the human species along with reviewing the* Catechism of the Catholic Church*. As a totally undisciplined writer, there is not much hope that I will ever present material in an “orderly manner.” However, I will jump in when I can.

For many, many reasons, it is important to affirm the reality of Adam and Eve. This Lent I have started a thread about the relationship of Adam and Lent 2010 in Apologetics. However, since the topics of evolution/atheism are currently banned in both Apologetics and Philosophy forums, one’s posts need to respect this ban.
See sticky notes at top of these forums for complete information. Hint–at all costs, maintain courtesy and charity.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

Granny,

Do I understand you correctly? We’re not allowed to discuss evolution and/atheism?? I don’t see that anywhere in “Forum Rules”, where did you find it? If that is the case, there is very little point in continuing this discussion because I was specifically interested in discussion the relationship between Adam, God and evolution (isn’t that what this whole thread is about?) I am very confused.

 

[grannymh]

Granny,

Do I understand you correctly? We’re not allowed to discuss evolution and/atheism?? I don’t see that anywhere in “Forum Rules”, where did you find it? If that is the case, there is very little point in continuing this discussion because I was specifically interested in discussion the relationship between Adam, God and evolution (isn’t that what this whole thread is about?) I am very confused.

We are in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum. When you read the sticky notes at the top of each forum, you will find the general guidelines for CAF and then there will be particulars for each forum.

Here is what I posted above regarding the Apologetic and Philosophy Forums.

This Lent I have started a thread about the relationship of Adam and Lent 2010 in Apologetics. However, since the topics of evolution/atheism are currently banned in both Apologetics and Philosophy forums, one’s posts need to respect this ban.
See sticky notes at top of these forums for complete information. Hint–at all costs, maintain courtesy and charity.

Here is a link to the Apologetics sticky Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads Be sure to read both posts in this sticky.

Here is a link to the Philosophy sticky Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
Read all five replies to this sticky.

These are considered temporary bans. However, please read them carefully, especially the part about no petitions.

Both my evolutionary posts were closed when the ban went into effect. I do not dispute that because I am aware of what is going on. As far as I am concerned, I do my best to respect the judgment call of the Moderators.

Hopefully this clears things up – or maybe it is still clear as mud.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

We are in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum. When you read the sticky notes at the top of each forum, you will find the general guidelines for CAF and then there will be particulars for each forum.

Here is what I posted above regarding the Apologetic and Philosophy Forums.

Here is a link to the Apologetics sticky Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads Be sure to read both posts in this sticky.

Here is a link to the Philosophy sticky Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
Read all five replies to this sticky.

These are considered temporary bans. However, please read them carefully, especially the part about no petitions.

Both my evolutionary posts were closed when the ban went into effect. I do not dispute that because I am aware of what is going on. As far as I am concerned, I do my best to respect the judgment call of the Moderators.

Hopefully this clears things up – or maybe it is still clear as mud.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

Thank you for the clarification, and I realize that we are not on the Philosophy or Apologetics forum, however, after reading the Super Moderator’s hostile response and threats to a polite criticism of this ban (in the comments below it) I am not sure I’m interested in participating in CAF. Argument and debate are one of the best ways to discuss these subjects and the idea of a moderator closing an entire subject off (temporarily or not) from discussion goes against the whole idea of an online forum. What would a non-believer who was interested in the faith think when he came across this ban? No doubt he would conclude that Catholics are afraid of discussing challenging subjects and of engaging in rational debate…thus reinforcing every Enlightenment and Protestant anti-Catholic stereotype. The purpose of online forums like this is to allow free discussion about important subjects. The purpose of moderators is not to control what subjects are discussed (like a dictator) but make sure that the discussion follows the ground rules of civility and fair play (like a good judge.)

:shrug:God Bless and Sayonara

 

[jmcrae]

How do you mean? Do you mean, say, in disbelieving that a flood occurred as high as the highest mountains, etc?

What I want to know is, if there was no flood, then how did all those trilobyte fossils get up there?

It seems as if we are just not allowed to believe in it, because it’s a story from the Bible, and - o-0 - can’t have that!! So they get all complicated and come up with a very convoluted way that all those trilobytes got to the tops of the mountains. But no way was it because the mountains were under water at some point. Nuh-uh. That’s just way too simple.

 

[larkin31]

What I want to know is, if there was no flood, then how did all those trilobyte fossils get up there?

It seems as if we are just not allowed to believe in it, because it’s a story from the Bible, and - o-0 - can’t have that!! So they get all complicated and come up with a very convoluted way that all those trilobytes got to the tops of the mountains. But no way was it because the mountains were under water at some point. Nuh-uh. That’s just way too simple.

you are giving a child’s response to the topic. Do you really know NOTHING about the geological processes of sedimentation and continental drift, and the shifting of land masses and mountain formation? Are you aware that a great inland sea likely once penetrated far into the region which is now the center of the US? Are you aware of how rocks are formed, and at what depths in the earth (some of them), and how they end up raised in the mountains?

 

[grannymh]

I would sort of like to return to the original subject, which is the literal existence of Adam and Eve. I personally believe in evolution and in the evolution of the man (although I haven’t always.) It seems that most of the Catholics on this thread feel that human evolution is irreconcilable with Revelation. Could someone please explain, in an orderly manner, precisely what your concerns are in this area?

Me too.

The whole bit of Adam and Eve walking in friendship with God intrigues me. Intuitively, I know that it is possible for current humans to walk in friendship with God. Maybe one concern of Christians is how to explain this friendship connection of the created human with the Creator when there is this burst of scientific knowledge which appears to be in opposition to Divine Revelation.

Blessings,
granny

Creation reflects the beauty of the Creator.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Me too.

The whole bit of Adam and Eve walking in friendship with God intrigues me. Intuitively, I know that it is possible for current humans to walk in friendship with God. Maybe one concern of Christians is how to explain this friendship connection of the created human with the Creator when there is this burst of scientific knowledge which appears to be in opposition to Divine Revelation.

Blessings,
granny

Creation reflects the beauty of the Creator.

Again, I do not understand how current scientific knowledge is in opposition to Divine Revelation. What specifically is claimed to be in opposition?

 

[grannymh]

Again, I do not understand how current scientific knowledge is in opposition to Divine Revelation. What specifically is claimed to be in opposition?

Specifically, the claim is made that genetically it would be impossible to have a human population of two individuals. Adam and Eve, the sole parents of the human species, could not have existed–no way. This is based on the theory of a reduced population known as a bottleneck. The claim is also based on the coalescence theory and the assumption that the hominid lineage diverged from the chimpanzee lineage millions of years ago.

A statistical computer model is formulated based on assumptions regarding the rate of mutation of genes (molecular clock). Also figured in are estimated census populations and the estimated rate of growth for human populations. The programmed computer then traces (within an allowable percentage of accuracy/error) about 10,000 ancestors who may have descended from common ancestors in Africa. However, there are still scientists who hold to the multi-regional theory of human emergence. The popular Francisco J. Ayala is one of the leading scientists who denies Adam and Eve.

Regardless of different opinions on where pre-humans lived, scientists will then argue that there were 10,000 plus adams which contradicts Catholic teaching regarding one Adam, one original sin, and one needed Redeemer.

Blessings,
granny

Creation reflects the beauty of its Creator.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

Specifically, the claim is made that genetically it would be impossible to have a human population of two individuals. Adam and Eve, the sole parents of the human species, could not have existed–no way. This is based on the theory of a reduced population known as a bottleneck. The claim is also based on the coalescence theory and the assumption that the hominid lineage diverged from the chimpanzee lineage millions of years ago.

A statistical computer model is formulated based on assumptions regarding the rate of mutation of genes (molecular clock). Also figured in are estimated census populations and the estimated rate of growth for human populations. The programmed computer then traces (within an allowable percentage of accuracy/error) about 10,000 ancestors who may have descended from common ancestors in Africa. However, there are still scientists who hold to the multi-regional theory of human emergence. The popular Francisco J. Ayala is one of the leading scientists who denies Adam and Eve.

Regardless of different opinions on where pre-humans lived, scientists will then argue that there were 10,000 plus adams which contradicts Catholic teaching regarding one Adam, one original sin, and one needed Redeemer.

Blessings,
granny

Creation reflects the beauty of its Creator.

Well I see a number of ways in which Adam and Eve (in a theological sense) can be reconciled with evolutionary biology. It’s true that evolution won’t produce just two members of an entirely new species, that’s not the way it works. However:

• When scientists say “human” they are referring to creatures that are biologically human, that is, members of the genus homo, but certainly there could be highly intelligent animals of the that genus or even of the same biological species as ourselves that are not human in the theological or philosophical sense of the word. By highly intelligent, I mean creatures with high “sense intelligence” (Thomistic term), much higher than any existing animal, and yet not true intellect. Etienne Gilson and Maritain speculated about just such a being. Indeed, hominid fossils found with primitive tools suggest that just such beings existed. Given this assumption, there are a number of different scenarios that are workable.

1. Evolutionary Monogenism 1- God draws out a male and female from a preexisting population of creatures which are biologically homo sapiens sapiens, but lack a spiritual soul. God puts these beings to sleep and creates spiritual souls in them. When they awake, they are Adam and Eve. The first true humans. They would recognize the difference between themselves and the quasi-humans, being unnable to communicate with them, etc.
2. Evolutionary Monogenism 2- In this scenario the same prior assumptions hold but instead the transition is more subtle. One or two of these quasi beings becomes aware of himself as a person, an event more or less simultaneous with the acquisition of a soul (specially created by God of course.) Under this scenario, the children of Adam and Eve have to marry and start families with each other, which creationists (and almost no one else) claim wouldn’t lead to genetic abnormalities. However, this seems like special pleading to me, since the only reason one would take this scientific view is to prop up creationist assumptions, which are precisely the issue in question. However, this is one way of reconciling monogenism with evolution without changing the theory itself.
3. Evolutionary Poly/Monogenism 1 An entire population of homo sapiens is awakened to personhood under the previous scenario, one of them (Adam) is designated as their advocate or mediator. The spiritual fate of this population and all it’s descendants (whether to retain its preternatural gift of original perfection) depends on the choices of this Adam and Eve. So that Adam is the father of all in a spiritual sense, but not in a biological sense.

Incidently, if we try to read the creation story literally and say there were no humans on earth but Adam, Eve and their children, how do we explain Cain going to a far away land and building a city and taking a wife(Gen 4:16-4:18?). Ironically, there must have been other people on earth even on a literal reading. The important thing for us to a) preserve the doctrine of original sin (which is foundational);(the fall of these other people must be causally linked to Adam and Eve) and b) face up to facts of science. The question is how. I think the scenarios above are possibilities.

 

[jmcrae]

you are giving a child’s response to the topic. Do you really know NOTHING about the geological processes of sedimentation and continental drift, and the shifting of land masses and mountain formation? Are you aware that a great inland sea likely once penetrated far into the region which is now the center of the US? Are you aware of how rocks are formed, and at what depths in the earth (some of them), and how they end up raised in the mountains?

Like I said - convoluted.

 

[jmcrae]

Incidently, if we try to read the creation story literally and say there were no humans on earth but Adam, Eve and their children, how do we explain Cain going to a far away land and building a city and taking a wife(Gen 4:16-4:18?). Ironically, there must have been other people on earth even on a literal reading. The important thing for us to a) preserve the doctrine of original sin (which is foundational);(the fall of these other people must be causally linked to Adam and Eve) and b) face up to facts of science. The question is how. I think the scenarios above are possibilities.

The text shows that Cain killed Abel in the 130th year after the eviction from Eden. If Adam and Eve had one child each year for 130 years, there would have been 114 children of child-bearing age. The eldest two would have had 113 children of their own by then, the next two would have had 111, and so on. Continue the same progression through their grandchildren, and actually, there could have been a fairly large human population in existence by that time.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

The text shows that Cain killed Abel in the 130th year after the eviction from Eden. If Adam and Eve had one child each year for 130 years, there would have been 114 children of child-bearing age. The eldest two would have had 113 children of their own by then, the next two would have had 111, and so on. Continue the same progression through their grandchildren, and actually, there could have been a fairly large human population in existence by that time.

1)The relevant passages do not say that the 130 years start after the Fall (because, assuming Eden is a literal place, we don’t know how many years passed within it before the Fall.)

1. The same texts do not say that Seth was born immediately after Abel’s killing, so you can’t say with any certainty that Abel was killed 130 years after the Fall…
2. Your making special assumptions that aren’t included in the very text which is supposed to be taken literally (namely, that Adam and Eve had one child every year or had any other children than those mentioned.)
3. Here is another passage in which a plain reading suggests that Cain was afraid of people in a far away land killing him:

" Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and** whoever finds me will kill me**.”

" But the LORD said to him, “Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden."(Gen 4:13-16).

If he’s being to “driven from the land” and is “hidden from [God’s] presence” and a “restless wanderer” why would he be afraid of “whoever finds him” unless, again, there are other people out there who are strangers to him and his family (and who for that matter, are not in “God’s presence” in the same way?)

As I said, a literal reading causes problems. Even you are forced to make special assumptions about birth rates and 100+ additional children (thus failing your own literalist criteria) in order to defend this reading.

 

[grannymh]

1)The relevant passages do not say that the 130 years start after the Fall (because, assuming Eden is a literal place, we don’t know how many years passed within it before the Fall.)

1. The same texts do not say that Seth was born immediately after Abel’s killing, so you can’t say with any certainty that Abel was killed 130 years after the Fall…
2. Your making special assumptions that aren’t included in the very text which is supposed to be taken literally (namely, that Adam and Eve had one child every year or had any other children than those mentioned.)
3. Here is another passage in which a plain reading suggests that Cain was afraid of people in a far away land killing him:

" Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and** whoever finds me will kill me**.”

" But the LORD said to him, “Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden."(Gen 4:13-16).

If he’s being to “driven from the land” and is “hidden from [God’s] presence” and a “restless wanderer” why would he be afraid of “whoever finds him” unless, again, there are other people out there who are strangers to him and his family (and who for that matter, are not in “God’s presence” in the same way?)

As I said, a literal reading causes problems. Even you are forced to make special assumptions about birth rates and 100+ additional children (thus failing your own literalist criteria) in order to defend this reading.

 

[grannymh]

Well I see a number of ways in which Adam and Eve (in a theological sense) can be reconciled with evolutionary biology. It’s true that evolution won’t produce just two members of an entirely new species, that’s not the way it works. However:

My first reaction is that the three suggested proposals are actually polygenism which is not a theological possibility. Hopefully, someone more familiar with the subtleties will answer.