Adam. Man or Myth?

[dessert]

We’ll both be dead and that will be it.
If there was an Adam, there would not be any of the evolutionary evidence to the contrary. Seeing as there are masses of evidence for evolution and none for an Adam, I’ll stick with evolution.

You don’t reeaallly believe this do you?
You don’t really believe there isn’t a creator do you?
Do you want evidence from God?
Return from the desert

 

[Pryority7]

The fossil record is good but it does not support evolution. There is virtually no transitional species from one rock layer to another. In fact, the most famous fossilized record against evolution is what scientists call “The Cambrian Explosion”. In the rock layers before the Cambrian period, the only fossils that were there were a few sponges, jellyfish and a few worms…then, BAM!!! in the next layer of rock there is such a complex variety of living organisms it is difficult to actually believe that there was a slow evolutionary transition from simple organisms to the complex animal phyla with eyes, brains, and other complex organs that random mutations cannot create over such a short period of time. May I suggest The Case for a Creator By Lee Strobel.
P7**

 

[dessert]

Yes and I believe that a tooth fairy comes along, takes children’s teeth and leaves money behind. I also believe that there are elves and pixies. Not forgetting the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot and the abominable snowman. Not to mention there are the unicorns, the Hobbits from Middle Earth, Merlin the wizard and finally Pinocchio the wooden puppet that became a real boy.

With a vivid imagination…

When I was little my parents told me about santa clause all the time. It was their way of getting me to behave, allthough I don’t think I was the brattiest kid. I think I believed till I was ten then they told me the truth, and I immediately told my little brother because I was angry that they had lied to me. I was pretty nieve to totally believe them all those years. It took me a long time to get over my anger and trust an adult again. So when I got older I put it to my kids but helped them realize that it was just an adult game that we all play at in order to keep secrets and have surprises. What has happened to you?
Return

 

[Orogeny]

The fossil record is good but it does not support evolution.

That is absolutely false. The fossil record is very strong evidence for evolution regardless of what Lee Strobel, the note JOURNALIST believes.

Peace

Tim

 

[patg]

Spoken like someone who knows nothing of ancient Hebrew literature. No offense but you can’t make this statement and claim to have a grasp of Biblical literature.

Then please enlighten me. I could say the same thing about someone who doesn’t understand the literary form and mythical symbolism of the genesis stories.

 

[R_McGeddon]

and the theory (yes, it is still just a theory)

I wonder how many times I will say this:

A theory isn’t an idea that scientists pull out of their hats. Educate yourself and visit this Link to find out what it takes to become a theory.

Evolution is the scientific version of the Creation story.

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever, if you can’t differentiate between a theory and a story. The two are poles apart.

the way the Earth was formed, in fact, the Universe, and all the forms of life on earth, according to science, still very much supports the story of Creation

It most certainly does not.

I believe the scientists get it right, at least until they try to say that we descended from apes.

We still are apes, here’s another link: Homo Sapiens Hominidae. Read and inwardly digest.

 

[R_McGeddon]

What has happened to you?
Return

What do you mean?

 

[buffalo]

Could you please provide me with a citation? I hadn’t realized that the single parents idea was dogma.

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)

 

[tdgesq]

whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

This is the only one I’m interested in. The rest don’t give a direct answer to the question. Citation to this please? Thanks.

 

[bankerdavid]

I wonder how many times I will say this:

A theory isn’t an idea that scientists pull out of their hats. Educate yourself and visit this Link to find out what it takes to become a theory.
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever, if you can’t differentiate between a theory and a story. The two are poles apart.

From your own source:

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition.

So the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are based on the facts we have, but until we have all of them, they will remain theories. And as I said, these theories, which I believe, are the newest explanation of the same story that is told in Genesis. One does not dispute the other. In fact, did you know that Catholics are responsible for the evolution of current scientific thought???

It most certainly does not.
We still are apes, here’s another link: Homo Sapiens Hominidae. Read and inwardly digest.

Again, the theory of evolution is a theory, and not a fact. The article you state even shows dispute about where on the tree humans and gorillas belong. So it’s not set in stone either.

 

[tdgesq]

People seem to be relying on the following:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

Here’s the problem I have though. The source is a papal encyclical. That isn’t in itself a problem, it’s just that my understanding is that unless the prounouncement meets the conditions of infallibility, Pope Pius XII was only teaching in his capacity as a Doctor of the Church. It doesn’t seem to meet the standard of a dogmatic decree. Any thoughts here?

 

[steveandersen]

This is the only one I’m interested in. The rest don’t give a direct answer to the question. Citation to this please? Thanks.

Buffalo was citing the Dogma of the Catholic Church

However a recent article in L’Osservatore Romano indicates that theologians are still examining the question and give a variety of hypothesis.

In part they state …

that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin.

One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine.

Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin.

It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men.

These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated.

 

[steveandersen]

…Again, the theory of evolution is a theory, and not a fact.

There is both the fact of evolution (that it occurred) and the theory of evolution i.e. the mechanism that explains how it occurred

The article you state even shows dispute about where on the tree humans and gorillas belong. So it’s not set in stone either.

That highlights the differences between the fact and the theory
While the exact position of the split on the tree may never be known, no real scientist or competitive theory would suggest that the connection doesn’t exists.

We’re apes, we’re not only apes, but we are apes too.

 

[Valke2]

The church teaches that we are all descended from one man and one woman. The stories concerning Adam and Eve in Genesis are myths - imaginative stories which explore a reality beyond the writer’s comprehension.

And why isn’t the story that we are all descended from two people (and one could argue that Genesis Chapter 1 created Adam and Eve in the same person ) , not a myth as well?

 

[PhilVaz]

buffalo << The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.) >>

Ah ha, so its not De Fide, but only Sent. certa.

Here is another list of dogmas, both De Fide and lesser
And my Catholic Dogma on creation (#1 in Google)

But is it De Fide that we physically descend from a single human pair? In other words, at one point the entire population of the human race was just two people? This appears to be a strictly scientific question, and science (anthropology, genetics, etc) seems to have disproved that the past 100 years. Though we trace genetically back to one woman (mt-Eve who lived about 150,000 years ago), and one man (Y-Adam who lived about 60,000 years ago), the physical human population never got down below 10,000 individuals. So says Alec (Hecd in here) and Francis Collins (excerpt from his 2006 talk at www.ASA3.org ).

We can stem (spiritually) from one single human pair who were the first to receive human souls and who then committed the original sin by deliberately disobeying God thus making them morally culpable individuals.

What does John Paul II say about Genesis in his Theology of the Body? I’ve quoted it already: “A reflection in depth on this text – through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character [and see footnote #1 on the “Adamic myth”] – provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man, to which modern, and especially contemporary philosophical anthropology is sensitive.” (John Paul II, “The Second Account of Creation: the Subjective Definition of Man,” Sept 19, 1979, published in the Vatican Newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Sept 24, 1979)

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “Cosmology and Fundamental Physics”)

And please nobody forget that Fr. Mitch Pacwa has already called evolution “a fact” and “the truth” so there’s no getting away from that for EWTN fans.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

steve << However a recent article in L’Osservatore Romano indicates that theologians are still examining the question and give a variety of hypothesis. >>

Yes good point. Note that this is the Vatican’s own official newspaper. The article by Fr. Roberto Masi published in 1969 basically says biological polygenism with spiritual monogenism would be OK with Catholic theology, and that Catholic theologians are still debating the point:

More recently, in a book that Catholic Answers used to sell: “Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection.” (J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church [1996 edition], page 169)

Phil P

 

[Pryority7]

That is absolutely false. The fossil record is very strong evidence for evolution regardless of what Lee Strobel, the note JOURNALIST believes.

Peace

Tim

Actually, it wasn’t Lee Strobel that stated this, but the scientists he interviewed in the book…scientists that are acredited and contributors to many breakthroughs in science in the last decade. Lee is just quoting them. If you read the book, you’ll see that it is a series of interviews…the fossil record does not have the transitional species from one kind of living thing to another…the Cambrian Explosion…how would YOU address these two issues in regards to the evolutionary process?

-P7

 

[PhilVaz]

pry << Actually, it wasn’t Lee Strobel that stated this, but the scientists he interviewed in the book…scientists that are acredited and contributors to many breakthroughs in science in the last decade. >>

Oh really? What breakthroughs in science are Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer responsible for? Please name one. William Lane Craig is not a scientist, but I’ll admit he’s great in debate with atheists. Strobel’s claims on evolution are bogus. He equates evolution with atheism throughout the book. Three books demolish his claims: Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller, Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk. Written by Christians or Catholics.

Wells and Meyer work for the Discovery Institute. Behe is the only one with a real job and he accepts macroevolution (common descent) for the most part, including the evolution of man. I’ve quoted him many times in this forum. Listen to his Catholic Answers interview (from Jan 1999).

pry << …the fossil record does not have the transitional species from one kind of living thing to another…the Cambrian Explosion…how would YOU address these two issues in regards to the evolutionary process? >>

Here’s how we’ve addressed them since May 2004 in here. They are bogus creationist claims made by the “scientific creationists” decades before. There is nothing new in the Strobel book. His Case for Christ is a much better book.

"No transitional fossils"
Cambrian Explosion

Next.

Phil P

 

[Pryority7]

Touche…but in retrospect, this does not negate the existence of God or His act of creating…let me give my opinion…I used to believe in evolution…now I’m kind of indifferent to it…if it happened, so what? It was still God who did the creating and behind the development of every living thing.
There are many other ideas that rule out the things you presented here. I’ll look for it and present it when I get it.

By the way, many of the Pre-cambrian organisms that are described in that study were microscopic…when did a microscopic organism like an ameba give birth to a trilobite?

 

[MojeIme1981]

Yes, I do believe in literal Adam and literal Eve.