Adam and Eve

[Benedictus]

We all came from one mother and one father. Biology explains this through Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is a section of DNA that comes directly from the mother, and remains unchanged from one generation to the next; it doesn’t get mixed or recombined with the fathers mitochondrial DNA. So you have the same Mitochondrial DNA as your siblings, and since it doesn’t change from generation to generation, you have the same Mitochondrial DNA as your grandmother and great-grandmother, and so on. Everyone in the human population (accounting for genetic mutations) has the same Mitochondrial DNA, proving that we are all descendants from one mother; the Y-Chromosome DNA is the male genetic counterpart to that, showing we all come from one father.

Mostly correct, but we don’t all have the same mtDNA; although, we can all trace our mtDNA to the same woman who lived 140,00 years ago. There have been many mutations since (mtDNA mutates more often than nuclear DNA), and mtDNA is quite useful in numerous fields, since it can be used to determine or track a person’s ancestry through female lines.

So genetics proves that we all come from one set of parents.

Umm… no. The unfortunately named Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, from whom all living humans can trace their ancestry through strictly matrilineal and patriarchal descent respectively were not alive at the same time nor were they the only woman or man alive at the time.

While the idea of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are interesting, they do not prove that we are all descended from only one original couple. The two lived tens of thousands of years apart (“Eve” having lived around 140,000 years ago and “Adam” 60,000 years ago).

Currently there is no science that proves–or even suggests–that we’re all descended from exactly one original pair of humans.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I’d like to give you my thoughts on why I believe these stories not to have literally taken place, but they have value for Christians.

Creation
I think the story of creation is also a story about redemption. God finished creating the world on a Friday, and rested on the Saturday. Jesus finished redeeming the world on a Friday (on the Cross) and he was laid resting (in the tomb) on a Saturday. :twocents:

Adam and Eve
I think the story of Adam and Eve is about how man has fallen away from God and we lose our everlasting life (or santifying grace). But the story is also about the new Adam (ie the Groom Jesus) and the new Eve (ie, His Bride, The Church) who give us back that everlasting life. :twocents:

Noah’s Ark
I think the story of Noah’s Ark is God telling us that, like the way he can destroy the world with water, he can also save the world with water (ie, baptism). :twocents:

Anyway, these are my reasons for believing that stories like Adam and Eve are just myths - but with lessons for Christians. (I have no idea if that still makes me Catholic or not. )

 

[Ilroy]

OK, so where did the “entire clan of humans” come from?

Besides, an account of the type you describe is already in Genesis, although in that scenario, eight survive, not two. Haven’t you ever heard of Noah?

Ya beat me to it…I was gonna bring up the Noah account…

 

[momee3]

If there was no Adam and Eve, there would be no original sin and if there was no original sin, why did God send his only Son to die on the cross. Also, if there was no original sin why is Jesus coming again?

 

[1ke]

If there was no Adam and Eve, there would be no original sin and if there was no original sin, why did God send his only Son to die on the cross. Also, if there was no original sin why is Jesus coming again?

Momee,

For the Catholic answer to this-- as opposed to those posting that Adam and Eve are just a “myth”-- I suggest you obtain a copy of Humani Generis, or read it online.

In it Pope Pius XII reiterates Catholic teaching regarding our origins. Yes, Catholics are required to hold that we are descended from one set of real first parents-- monogenesis-- and from which we inherit Original Sin. Polygenenism is not compatible with the faith.

Catholics are also required to hold creation ex nihilo and special creation of the soul.

Beyond that, we are free to speculate on the mechanisms God used in creation and differentiation of the species.

 

[steveandersen]

… Yes, Catholics are required to hold that we are descended from one set of real first parents-- monogenesis-- and from which we inherit Original Sin. Polygenenism is not compatible with the faith…

Interestingly enough, science also favors a monogenic origin as opposed to multiregional origin
Although the scientific definitions of monogenism and polygenism are slightly different.

Science really can’t speak to the actions of individuals, only groups
So monogenism in scientific terms means a common original population.

 

[1ke]

So monogenism in scientific terms means a common original population.

However that is NOT what it means in Catholic teaching. To reiterate from Humani Generis:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Please define your understanding of your usage of the word “myth”.

Thanks.

My understanding of the word myth is its Greek origin (mythos) which means fable or fairy story.

 

[steveandersen]

However that is NOT what it means in Catholic teaching. To reiterate from Humani Generis:…

Yes I know but that is the closest natural science can get. The rest is faith.

The details are a mystery.

 

[R_McGeddon]

The atheist mind is too dense for such thinking, and will only generate noise and hatred at the hearing of such things.

An amazing generalisation, have you always been this judgemental??

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

My understanding of the word myth is its Greek origin (mythos) which means fable or fairy story.

OK, and what does “fable” or “fairy tale” mean to you as to what such things are for, or what they do?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
The atheist mind is too dense for such thinking, and will only generate noise and hatred at the hearing of such things.

An amazing generalisation, have you always been this judgemental??

No, and that mental disease of being “non-judgemental” about things which demand judgement is happily in my past.

The reason that the “atheistic mind” is “dense” is that it “blocks” from it’s own awareness it’s own “god” such that it can both HAVE (and follow) a “god” and deny “gods” (or God) exist.

The reasons why that kind of mentality would generate “noise” (irrational conceptualizations verbalized) and “hatred”, which is the invariable result of frustration at not being able to “overcome” truth, are rather obvious.

Atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and why should something of that sort not be judged appropriately as an “evil” (mostly but not exclusively to the detriment of the “holder” of it)?

 

[R_McGeddon]

OK, and what does “fable” or “fairy tale” mean to you as to what such things are for, or what they do?

They refer to something that is not true or real.

 

[R_McGeddon]

No, and that mental disease of being “non-judgemental” about things which demand judgement is happily in my past.

Not whilst you make those kind of posts it is not!

The reason that the “atheistic mind” is “dense” is that it “blocks” from it’s own awareness it’s own “god” such that it can both HAVE (and follow) a “god” and deny “gods” (or God) exist.

The reasons why that kind of mentality would generate “noise” (irrational conceptualizations verbalized) and “hatred”, which is the invariable result of frustration at not being able to “overcome” truth, are rather obvious.

I’d address these paragraphs if they made sense.

Atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and why should something of that sort not be judged appropriately as an “evil” (mostly but not exclusively to the detriment of the “holder” of it)?

Why don’t you make another thread and try to qualify this hopelessly inaccurate statement?!

 

[R_McGeddon]

If there was no Adam and Eve, there would be no original sin and if there was no original sin, why did God send his only Son to die on the cross. Also, if there was no original sin why is Jesus coming again?

This shows what a fragile house of cards religion truly is, take one out and the whole lot comes falling down.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
OK, and what does “fable” or “fairy tale” mean to you as to what such things are for, or what they do?

They refer to something that is not true or real.

Can the reality of the message of a story be “real” such that the “actors” (characters) within the story existed, are real, in some way unknown to the storyteller?

In other words, if I tell a “fable” in which a man called Fnert meets a woman caled Grooj and they fall in love and she is taken captive by the Trooglit GLARRRR from whom Fnert rescues his beloved and they finally get married and live rather uncomfortably with the children of GLARRRR due to having deprived them of their one parent and in charity took them in,…

… does that ELIMINATE the possibility that some man/woman pair overcame difficulties and got married and had to deal with their actions which were difficult?

Adam and Eve were real persons, as the Church defines persons, whom we have come to call “Adam” and “Eve” who erred in such a way as to “call forth” bodily death, with all the implications of that fact, from which all human beings are descended as the Church defines the word “descended”, with the purpose of bringing mankind to eternal salvation, as a remnant, while allowing some individuals the choice of eternal damnation.

Be careful and precise by what you mean when you say “real”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
No, and that mental disease of being “non-judgemental” about things which demand judgement is happily in my past.

Not whilst you make those kind of posts it is not!

OK.

So it’s OK for you to be judgemental and not me?

Since I’m claiming that it’s a good thing to be judgemental when it’s called for, and you SEEM to be condemning all “judgementalism” as always “bad”, who is “bad” in your eyes if not both of us?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
The reason that the “atheistic mind” is “dense” is that it “blocks” from it’s own awareness it’s own “god” such that it can both HAVE (and follow) a “god” and deny “gods” (or God) exist.

The reasons why that kind of mentality would generate “noise” (irrational conceptualizations verbalized) and “hatred”, which is the invariable result of frustration at not being able to “overcome” truth, are rather obvious.

I’d address these paragraphs if they made sense.

Meanwhile, back at “dense”. Excellent illustration thereof!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Not whilst you make those kind of posts it is not!
I’d address these paragraphs if they made sense.
Why don’t you make another thread and try to qualify this hopelessly inaccurate statement?!

I may do that, so keep looking for it, but I can’t right at the moment.

I actually HAVE gove through clarifying this in the past, but since the audience constantly changes, doing it yet again is called for.

By the way, what you call the above “inaccurate statement(s)” were themselves, or was itself, a summation of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
The reason that the “atheistic mind” is “dense” is that it “blocks” from it’s own awareness it’s own “god” such that it can both HAVE (and follow) a “god” and deny “gods” (or God) exist.

The reasons why that kind of mentality would generate “noise” (irrational conceptualizations verbalized) and “hatred”, which is the invariable result of frustration at not being able to “overcome” truth, are rather obvious.

…which if not understood by you says both I didn’t communicate with you in a way you could understand, and that you didn’t understand what I did say.

Now, I could be perfectly understandable and you might not understand me because of your “denseness”. I could also be utterly objectively indecipherable.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by momee3
If there was no Adam and Eve, there would be no original sin and if there was no original sin, why did God send his only Son to die on the cross. Also, if there was no original sin why is Jesus coming again?

This shows what a fragile house of cards religion truly is, take one out and the whole lot comes falling down.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

Just remember the basis of science, my friend:

The “strength” of a theory is the amount it answers in the WEAKEST way possible!

The BEST theory is the one that is MOST easily provably wrong while not having BEEN proved wrong.

I do love it when “atheistic materialists” are hoist on their own petards!