Adam was born how many years ago?

[Randolph]

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?

No, I am not asking you to educate me. I am telling you that, since you said human evolution is “well settled science”, the burden is upon you to prove it.

You do realize that people would not just fall in line because you invoke the “settled science” phrase.

 

[Randolph]

Even the Church doesn’t make these determinations based only on faith. Alleged miracles are investigated based on evidence.

Is the miracle of forgiveness of sins in the confessional a matter of faith? Is the miracle of the consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ a matter of faith? What about resurrection of Christ Himself? The raising of Lazarus? The virgin birth of Christ? Our own resurrection of the body? Etc… Why do we proclaim the mystery of faith during Mass?

Do you need evidence in order to believe in them? Or is it primary a matter of faith??

 

[Pattylt]

I just want to clear up a bit of language here. Science doesn’t do proofs. Math does proofs. Science uses evidence to develop hypothesis and as evidence mounts, they develop a theory. It’s never proven. It’s provisional upon the current evidence and is modified or changed as more evidence comes to light. It’s never really settled either. But what it IS, is validated with massive amounts of evidence…so much in the case of evolution that a massive new understanding would have to happen to change it. Bits and pieces of how it happened may be in dispute but the overall theory is not. Occasionally, some piece of evidence may come along that questions a small part of it. Then science will try to figure out why it appears to challenge that little part, but nothing has challenged the overall theory. The theory explains the evidence and it will continue to point to evolution until a better explanation comes along.

Evolution can be disproven, just not proven. Anyone is welcome to hypothesize and develop a new theory, if that theory explains the evidence better than the theory of evolution. A Pulitzer Prize is waiting. So far, everything discovered has confirmed the theory and these additional pieces of evidence continue to validate how strong the theory is.

 

[JimG]

I think that the existence of writing and written records shows an ability for abstract thought. And abstract thought implies the existence of a rational soul.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

That’s one interpretation of the text. The only doctrinal truth that you’ve brushed up against is that the Church declares that there were no pre-Adamite human persons.

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

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.

That’s one interpretation of the text. The only doctrinal truth that you’ve brushed up against is that the Church declares that there were no pre-Adamite human persons.

In the mouths of the Church’s teachers, pre-Adamite means pre-Adamite human persons. Chimpanzees and monkeys are not pre-Adamites.

 

[Gorgias]

In the mouths of the Church’s teachers, pre-Adamite means pre-Adamite human persons. Chimpanzees and monkeys are not pre-Adamites.

Red herring. We’re not talking about other animals that are physically distinct from Adam; we’re positing hominins who are physically indistinguishable from Adam.

If you’re saying merely that “pre-Adamite” implies “ensouled human”, then we agree: there were no ensouled humans – that is, true humans – prior to Adam.

 

[Zaccheus]

If you’re saying merely that “pre-Adamite” implies “ensouled human”, then we agree: there were no ensouled humans – that is, true humans – prior to Adam.

I’m saying that Adam had no ancestors.

He was not born from a female.
He was not begotten by a male.
He had no brothers, no sisters, no uncles nor aunts, no grandfather nor grandmotherr.
There was no living creature that stood as ancestor or relative to Adam, nor to Eve.
He had no mother, and he had no father but God.
God [created] the first man and the first woman.

That– is what I mean by “no pre-Adamites”.

 

[Gorgias]

That– is what I mean by “no pre-Adamites”.

Do we teach that magisterially as a doctrine, though?

I get it that this is your interpretation. I get it that this is the interpretation which flows from a hyper-literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-2. But, that’s not something that the Church requires us to hold to as doctrine.

 

[TMC]

That– is what I mean by “no pre-Adamites”.

Do we teach that magisterially as a doctrine, though?

No, I don’t believe so. I think a Catholic MAY believe that Adam had no physical, biological precursor (no father, no mother, and so forth). But I don’t think the Church REQUIRES that belief. See, for example, the Vatican document Communion and Stewardship, which says:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

In Pope Benedict’s books he referred to the moment that mere animals became man as the “rise of the spirit,” noting that you can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it with paleontology because it involves a change that is not merely physical.

 

[phil3]

I have always believe that Adam was the first person to ask “Why”?

 

[Gorgias]

I have always believe that Adam was the first person to ask “Why”?

I tend to see it more in terms of two-year-olds: Adam was the first person to take a tantrum, stomp and say “No!” …

 

[buffalo]

What Became of the Genetic Challenge to Adam and Eve?

Bottom line - this objection is invalid. Now onto what year was Adam created. Stay tuned…

 

[Randolph]

Can you please provide legitimate peer-reviewed references that show that human evolution is not yet accepted science? The fossil record, anthropological discoveries, and genetic evidence provide evidence that is convincingly established and accepted by all scientists.

What is your scientific alternative? What is your scientific alternative and evidence that evolution did NOT occur?

I’m sorry, but I honestly can’t take such a comment that evolution is not true seriously.

You don’t seem to understand scientific methods. The burden of proof is upon you who claimed that you have proof of human evolution. I want to see your proof. It is not upon me to disprove your claim.

So we know that fossil organisms existed some 4 billions years ago after the formation of the earth. Show me your proof how these organisms have evolved to modern day humans. Since you said you have the proof, it should be easy for you to unveil it.

For the record, I am not a creationists. I do believe that there are good evidences that support human evolution. In his book, “The Language of God”, Francis Collins (Former director of the Genome Project) provided good evidences for human evolution in DNA sequencing and in other developments in biology. He convinced me of the probability of human evolution. But he refrained himself from saying that human evolution has been proven or it is settled science.

 

[Gorgias]

The issue is why would an all-loving God create any species (98% in fact) that go extinct prior to human beings appearing on earth?

Why wouldn’t he?

Why did God allow massive amount of suffering for animals and other life-forms? This is not a loving God.

God created physical existence. Physical sensation – both pleasure and pain – are part of that existence. Your argument for ‘cruelty’ doesn’t really add up. It’s akin to those who claim “I cannot bring a child into this world, because he might experience pain.” OK – so, don’t, then!

The problem with intelligent design is that clearly a God that “designed” life-forms would not create those that go extinct

You clearly are a passionate believer in this claim… but you’ve shown nothing to substantiate it. Nevertheless, this isn’t the thread in which to bring it up.

 

[Zaccheus]

Do we teach that magisterially as a doctrine, though?

I get it that this is your interpretation. I get it that this is the interpretation which flows from a hyper-literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-2. But, that’s not something that the Church requires us to hold to as doctrine.

We do. It is. And I’m out. I should have stayed out the last time. God bless you all and I’m going to look for another thread to follow.

 

[goout]

That’s like asking me to quote you a textbook on the earth orbiting the sun.
It’s laziness on your part.

The anti evolution position is pointless and silly, and it makes Catholics look bad.
It scandalizes people away from the faith. It doesn’t deserve any serious debate, it should merely be called what it is: ignorance.

 

[Randolph]

That’s like asking me to quote you a textbook on the earth orbiting the sun.
It’s laziness on your part.

The anti evolution position is pointless and silly, and it makes Catholics look bad.
It scandalizes people away from the faith. It doesn’t deserve any serious debate, it should merely be called what it is: ignorance.

Look. I don’t have time to keep on repeating myself to you. You claimed that human evolution is well settled science. The burden is upon you to prove it.

Don’t accuse me of being lazy while you can’t make your case. That’s just weak.

 

[Randolph]

I gave you three well-know indisputable evidences:

1. The fossil record
2. Anthropological discoveries
3. Genetics

All three confirm the evolution of humans. You seem to have simply either not read my post or choose to ignore the evidence.
I assume you do not think these are sufficient? Clearly you can’t deny the evidence, and you obviously have no competing theory.

It appears your position is as follows:
“There is massive evidence for the entire scientific community, but not enough for me. And I have no alternative proposal.”

Why do you expect the rest of us to take you seriously?

It’s tiring to deal with you. You can believe whatever you want. You can’t seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. Bottom line is you can’t prove human evolution. I am checking out.

 

[buffalo]

is convincingly established and accepted by all scientists.

Uh no. Check out Royal Society and what the top evo’s are discussing. You are behind…