Adam was born how many years ago?

[Autumn-Smoke]

Hi, my name is Adam and I’m 32.

I came back to this thread just to read this again. Still loving it. I needed to smile.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m glad I can be of service, and you really should thank my mom for naming me, not after the biblical patriarch, but after Adam West. I guess ulmtimately it would be after the mechanical patriarch, wouldn’t it? Edit: I said biblical but my phone said mechanical. I’m not changing it.

 

[Gorgias]

You can’t be serious.

I am absolutely serious! After all, you’re the one who made the claim that there is a body of “scientific discovery, experiment, and logical extrapolation” which shows that Adam “could not have existed”! So… let’s see it! (Or, let’s dispense with the claim that science has done anything of the sort, please.)

No, that is incorrect. We have EVIDENCE that life forms evolve.

You claimed that we’ve seen them evolve. We haven’t. Granted, there’s empirical evidence that leads us in that direction. However, you were claiming a much higher standard for Adam – actual sight of the act itself. But, if you just meant “we don’t have evidence of ‘humans appear[ing] fully formed out of dust’”, then you’re correct. Nevertheless, that’s a hyperliteralistic interpretation of the Genesis text, so you’re not going to get many folks to assent that your interpretation of that text is what we should be held to.

I don’t follow this. I said Genesis says God created Adam from dust.

And I’m saying that this is a hyperliteralistic interpretation of the text. A first true human (i.e., ensouled) person may have been the result of evolution; what would make him ‘human’ (rather than merely ‘hominin’) would be the soul that God created immediately for him. And, this would be a reasonable interpretation of that text. So, I’m challenging “instantaneous appearance of the first human from non-organic material” on those grounds.

Again, no idea what you are saying.

That’s clear. However, your claim (that “all other human genetic lines died out”) does not necessarily follow from the Catholic doctrine that “every human being must be a descendant of Adam.” The counter-claim – to which i hold – suggests that, when a descendant of Adam procreated, his children would likewise have human souls (even if the other parent did not). That doesn’t imply that “all other human genetic lines died out”; rather, it implies that all hominin lines eventually became human lines. There’s a subtle distinction there which you seem to be missing.

Because that is not what people 200 years ago believed.

So what? 200 years ago, people believed that space travel and wireless communications were nonsense. They were wrong.

The point you bring up here isn’t Catholic doctrine, so we cannot make the claim that what folks thought 200 years ago on this subject must likewise be believed today. (If it were, then I would have to concede the point. It isn’t, though.)

 

[Gorgias]

Personally, I can’t subscribe to a loving God that looks down upon high millennia ago, sees thousands of human beings, declares that ONE (and only one) gets a soul, leaving the others to be soul-less

That’s because you’re mischaracterizing it. In this scenario, God doesn’t “see thousands of human beings”; there are, instead, “thousands of non-human hominins.” If it’s not “hard to believe” that one fish slithered out of the ocean and from him, land creatures were formed, then why is it hard to believe that one hominin received an immortal soul and from him, all humans came into existence? Nice double-standard you’ve got going, there.

Please…if I am wrong, explain why.

I have been, across many threads and many weeks. You seem to be tone-deaf to the explanations, though. I’m not quite sure why that is.

 

[Gorgias]

Because that “one human being” had parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and tribesmen.

Yet again: they were all hominins, not ‘human beings’. You could make the same case for the first fish who crawled onto a beach – he had “parents, brothers, sisters and friends”, too. Yet, you’re not concerned about them.
jan10000:

Also, every person that lived WITH Adam and his progeny, for untold generations, continued to be soul-less.

Every person in Adam’s line who had children, would have had human children.
jan10000:

You are making up your own religion.

Nope. Please show me doctrine that says that this is so. (I’ll save you the trouble: there isn’t any – although there are folks who interpret it, on their own initiative, as if it were.)
jan10000:

If you gave that explanation to Christians 150 years ago they would call you a heretic.

And if you talked about evolution to those same Christians 150 years ago, they have called you a heretic. So what?
jan10000:

That is the key point - that it is very difficult and nearly impossible to reconcile Christianity with Evolution.

The key point, then, is that science is science and theology is theology… and it’s not necessary to “reconcile” them, as such. They are both true, in their respective area of competence. Don’t try to make theologians out of scientists or vice-versa. That path leads to endless quarreling.
jan10000:

They know that to resolve Christianity with Evolution is effectively creating a new religion.

It really isn’t. But I appreciate that it’s your opinion that it is.
jan10000:

I give you credit, you are trying to reconcile the two.

I’m really not. I’m just showing that there isn’t the deep rift that you claim there is.
jan10000:

I was once in your shoes. Eventually you may realize that it is a losing battle, and we need to consider religion not as a formal structure but a guide - and that means changing it and realizing when some doctrines or dogmas no longer make sense.

Or, eventually you might realize that a divinely-instituted Church really is a formal structure, and isn’t in need of ‘change’ because of ‘nonsensical doctrines.’

Get back in those shoes, Jan. You may find that they fit quite well.
jan10000:

It actually happens all the time. Hell is disappearing. Purgatory is an afterthought. And Limbo?

In your first two examples, you’re merely pointing out errors that some are making; in your third, you are pointing to something that never was a doctrine. Keep trying…
jan10000:

So why not original sin? You’ve already change it yourself.

Nope – I’m sticking to what the Church has always proclaimed: one first pair of true humans; their personal sin, the effects of which are passed to their progeny. See? Same doctrine.

 

[Randolph]

You cannot be serious here. Evolution has been validated across multiple scientific disciplines over a hundred years. EVERY subsequent discovery as validated it. Every one. Genetics, for example, when discovered basically cemented evolution as correct beyond doubt. Remember, genetics was discovered nearly a century after Darwin. Truly remarkable. The evidence is overwhelming. I just can’t how anyone in the time can deny it now.

You know what… It is precisely arrogant people like you who discredit human evolution by claiming human evolution has been proven—while it has not. You can believe whatever you want—it’s just not. science.

Like I said, you should bring your “proof” to the Nobel committee and all the science institutions and publications to show them your great work. There is no need to comment on this forum.

I look forward to a new Nobel laureate in the field of evolutionary science—which would be you. You would be the greatest scientist who has ever live and change the course of history as we know it.

 

[Gorgias]

But you analogy is incorrect.

All analogies are ‘incorrect.’ That’s why they’re ‘analogies’ and not ‘proofs’.

The point of this analogy is that a new species springs from an individual and his progeny, as such, and not from the community at large. (That’s what seems to have gotten your goat, vis-a-vis the doctrine of “two first human parents.”)

Species are not ABSOLUTE - which is what you are implying they are. You pick a genetic marker at a point in time and define species from that marker.

LOL! And so, analogously, what we’re talking about here is the ‘soul’ as the marker which defines what ‘human’ is. Pretty darn good analogy, I’d say.

 

[Randolph]

I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you saying evolution is not true? Do you think it is probably true? What more evidence do you need?
Consider that every fossil ever dug up confirms evolutionary theory. The entire science of genetics confirms evolutionary theory. Chemistry. Geography. Zoology. Anthropology.
What else do you need?

Do you have an alternative theory?

Clearly you did not read my posts. There are evidences that support human evolution. But human evolution itself has not been proven at this point. It is at best either a hypothesis or a theory. Maybe, one day it will be proven—but so far not yet. If evolution someday is proven to be true, it would not affect my Catholic faith—for God was the creator of all things.

I don’t have or need to have an alternative theory. I just wait and see where the facts take me. I certainly would not claim something has been proven—while it clearly had not been.

 

[Gorgias]

I totally acknowledge your alternate theory of original sin versus the standard one put forth in Genesis.

It’s not the doctrine of “original sin” that is an ‘alternate theory’. (It’s the interpretative details surrounding the creation of humanity.)

What I am saying is that the standard historical foundation of Original Sin makes sense.

Sure. And in pre-evolution days, that was the only way to make sense of it. There are other ways to make sense of it today. Many of these ways – and I’m asserting that the proposal I’m championing is one of them – likewise uphold the doctrines of the creation of humanity and of original sin. Where they diverge is the understanding of how to contextualize them, and how to interpret the Scriptural accounts in terms of these non-doctrinal points.

If you’re saying that you have a different interpretation of how to make sense of Scripture, then so be it. The Church doesn’t place a requirement on whether to take those chapters literally or allegorically. Your interpretation, BTW, is highly literalistic.

But along comes evolution. And we realized that the above is not the way it happened.

No – I agree with the doctrinal points you outlined: God created two humans directly; they sinned; the effects of fallen human nature, as a result of that sin, is propagated to their descendants; we need a savior. See? All the doctrinal points are still there…! (Very clean. No mess. )

So we start performing theological gymnastics to make the doctrines still work despite the new ideas that directly contradict it.

No… the doctrines still hold; the ‘gymnastics’ are the contortions necessary to get from a literalistic reading of Scripture to a more nuanced one. That’s not on the Church, and that’s not on me. After all, neither of us forces you into a literalistic reading of Scripture. If you’re having a hard time getting away from your preferred interpretation of Scripture, that’s on you, right?

And why was a loving God so cruel as to create creatures that had to suffer for hundreds of thousands of years before God ‘decided’ to give one a soul?

Umm… all creatures suffer, whether or not they have immortal souls. By your definition, God is hopelessly entrenched in ‘cruelty’. (I disagree.)

Why DIDN’T he do it like Genesis claims?

You have to modify that statement; it’s inaccurate. What you’re really trying to ask is “why DIDN’T he do it like my personal interpretation of Genesis claims?”

But rest assured, your final theology is very very messy.

Theology is always messy, because it’s a human endeavor.

 

[Gorgias]

This is demonstrably false. Humans are far older than a few thousand years. There is no question about that scientific fact.

Hominins are far older than a few thousand years. From the perspective of the theological discussion (after all, that’s the context here, right?), the term ‘human’ means ‘hominin with an eternal, immaterial soul’. There’s no “scientific fact” to cite, with respect to souls. (OTOH, if you know a scientist who wishes to opine on the science of immaterial souls… run! Run away from him at all costs! )

 

[Zaccheus]

Edit: I said biblical but my phone said mechanical. I’m not changing it.

Nor should you.

 

[Zaccheus]

Because that “one human being” had parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and tribesmen. YOU are the one saying those people are not human. Also, every person that lived WITH Adam and his progeny, for untold generations, continued to be soul-less. There could literally have been thousands of generations where God gave souls only to Adam’s progeny, but to no one else.

No. There were no pre-Adamites. There were no soulless family for Adam to spring from. Adam had no brothers, sisters or cousins.
Adam had no father but God. God literally created Adam and Eve. They were not born, they were made.

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

God created the first man and the first woman as individuals a few thousands of years ago.

This is demonstrably false. Humans are far older than a few thousand years. There is no question about that scientific fact.

There are plenty of people who question that belief.

I was prudent to drop out of this thread a while back. I’m leaving again. God bless all of you whether or not you believe in Him.

 

[goout]

I can’t think of any Catholic theologian or scientist who debates that human evolution is well established. The matter is well settled science, not just evidence looking for connections.

 

[Randolph]

I can’t think of any Catholic theologian or scientist who debates that human evolution is well established. The matter is well settled science, not just evidence looking for connections.

If human evolution is “well settled science” as you say, then it should be easy for you to show us the concrete scientific proof that connects the fossil organisms that existed some 4 billions years ago to modern humans. I would love to see it.

For the record, I am not against human evolution. I just want to see more facts and evidences to support it.

 

[JimG]

Why is it that records of human civilizations appear rather abruptly beginning about 5,000 years ago with the Sumerians?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

But what about his “soul-less” parents, and his “soul-less” fellow hominins (as you say). Well, we just deal with it. And don’t all other genetic lines have to die out, so only Adam’s bloodline survives? Well, yes - it has to happen that way.

The same thing happened to Gorgias’s soulless hominins that happened to the Neanderthals. They interbred with ensouled humans or shrunk in population as humanity spread out. I see no problems with that explanation.

 

[Randolph]

Do you hold miracle claims to the same standard you demand of evolution?

Believing in miracles is a matter of faith. Whereas, in human evolution, many hold the view that it is settled science and has been proven. Neither of which is true.

 

[goout]

goout:

I can’t think of any Catholic theologian or scientist who debates that human evolution is well established. The matter is well settled science, not just evidence looking for connections.

If human evolution is “well settled science” as you say, then it should be easy for you to show us the concrete scientific proof that connects the fossil organisms that existed some 4 billions years ago to modern humans. I would love to see it.

For the record, I am not against human evolution. I just want to see more facts and evidences to support it.

So you want me to write you a basic science textbook when you can
A buy one and read it or
B take a class

It’s my responsibility to educate you on generally accepted matters?

 

[goout]

Why is it that records of human civilizations appear rather abruptly beginning about 5,000 years ago with the Sumerians?

What do you think? What do anthropologists say about it? When did folks settle into citys/civilizations? When were records able to be kept?