Adam was born how many years ago?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what? It was devastating to find out that the earth isn’t the center of the universe… but it was true.
They probably didn’t teach you this.

Axis of Evil

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil​

The universe lines up along the ‘axis of evil’. Coincidence?​

From the rotation of galaxies to cosmic expansion everything points in one direction. If only we knew why

Read more: The universe lines up along the 'axis of evil'. Coincidence? | New Scientist
 
Well, quite obviously, a perfect designer would not create an imperfect creature.
What? You have to know why he designed it the way he did. Yours is an absurd statement. BTW, bad design does not invalidate design.
 
For the record, I am not against human evolution. I just want to see more facts and evidences to support it.
I second that. There are lots of holes in Darwinian evolution. There is a family of plants which spit out their seed a few meters in all directions. It is an excellent survival strategy, so why do not all plants have the same strategy? it should have taken over by now. There is also a fish with both lungs and gills. The wheel is only human while electricity generation and storage is natural. And any ecosystem could be perfectly balanced by a couple hundred species, so why are there millions.
 
Do you know that different species cannot breed and produce fertile offspring? If neanderthals are not human, then they cannot produce fertile offspring with them.
 
Do you know that different species cannot breed and produce fertile offspring? If neanderthals are not human, then they cannot produce fertile offspring with them.
Neanderthals are a sub species, not a fully separate one and they did breed with Homo sapiens …we have some of their DNA in ours. Some species are such a recent split that they can still inter breed but have infertile or very low fertility…ligers from lions and tigers, etc. Speciation is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence.
 
Per the Septuagint, Adam was born in 5554 BC. To consider him a poetic fiction calls into question why he appears in so many genealogies, including that of Jesus.

Adam, 5554 BC to 4624 BC
Seth, 5324 BC to 4412 BC
Enosh, 5119 BC to 4214 BC
Cainan, 4929 BC to 4019 BC
Mahalalel, 4759 BC to 3864 BC
Jered, 4594 BC to 3632 BC
Enoch, 4432 BC to 4067 BC
Methuselah, 4267 BC to 3298 BC
Lamech, 4080 BC to 3303 BC
Noah, 3898 BC to 2948 BC

Flood occurred in 3298 BC. Note the sharp decrease in lifespans post-flood. You had dudes living to 900+ regularly, then suddenly, 100 or so years. Even Shem who was born pre-flood lost a few centuries.

Shem, 3396 BC to 2796 BC
Arpaschad, 3296 to 2731 BC
Cainan, 3161 BC to 2701 BC
Shelah, 3031 BC to 2498 BC
Eber, 2901 BC to 2397 BC

Tower of Babel incident happened in 2850 BC. Nicely matches up with a lot of language studies, languages that have no other relatives or words in common (especially Oriental languages).

Peleg, 2767 BC to 2428 BC
Reu, 2637 BC to 2298 BC
Serug, 2505 BC to 2175 BC
Nahor, 2375 BC to 2167 BC
Terah, 2296 BC to 2091 BC
Abraham, 2166 BC to 1991 BC
Isaac, 2066 BC to 1886 BC
Jacob, 2006 BC to 1859 BC

Jacob went to Egypt in 1876 BC. The Exodus happened in 1446 BC. Construction of Solomon’s Temple began in 967 BC.
 
According to modern research, they were not a subspecies. Though I’m sure other modern research counters this. Seems the science is far from settled and people can’t make up their minds.


Now you must show, if evolution is true, at what point did humans become so, and become ensouled. The whole theory, and it is called a theory because it is unproven, creates more questions than it answers. We should see a whole array of transitional fossils between species A and species B. Survivability adaptations would make no sense either because if a species adapted X trait to survive in some environment, it would have also needed that trait in the first place to survive in that environment. The first fish on land would have died, to put it simply. And who created this genetic programming and instigated this evolutionary change? Did God throw a fish onto dry land and miraculously sustain its life and the lives of its descendants until they grew legs and could breathe air? The more plausible explanation if evolution must be taken as an absolute truth, is that God does not exist, which also creates more questions than answers, and further complicates everything as there is nothing to create life in the first place and you definitely cannot create yourself. So according to Occam’s razor, God exists and evolution does not.
 
Quote: According to modern research, they were not a subspecies. Though I’m sure other modern research counters this. Seems the science is far from settled and people can’t make up their minds.

Are scientists still sorting out where Neanderthal, Denisovans, Ancient man and us are in the evolutionary bush…yes they are.

You reveal your weakness in science by your incorrect use of theory in science. It isn’t the same as the everyday usage of the word.

I’m unconcerned with ensoulment as that is a theological term and has nothing to do with science. Science only works with the material world and theology is only concerned with the spiritual world. You are free to deny evolution. Trying to deny it with theological arguments is as pointless as theologically arguing about gravity.
 
Last edited:
I would guess he was born around 75000 to 100000 years ago. That is the best estimate as to when language developed in the human race (as opposed to some if the theoretical proti-languages). Language is likely the result of being endowed with a rational soul.
 
40.png
goout:
The fact that God could do something does not mean that all possibilities are reasonable within the scope of human discovery.
But the point is that if you claim God is omniscient, and all-powerful, and all-good, why WOULD he insert Adam and Eve where he did?
Why not do it the way the Bible says he did?

In other words, you all in this thread seem to agree that “adam and eve” were not necessarily human, they lived at least half a million years ago, if not more, had parents, had siblings, friends, and so forth, all of which did not have souls, all of whose genetic lines died out. THEN, you claim this proto-human, with less brain capacity than a chimpanzee, somehow realized God exists, somehow “sinned”, and that sin transferred to the rest of us by blood over hundreds of thousands of generations - many of whom suffered untold pains, fears and tragedies. Not too mention all the earlier and contemporary “humans” that suffered horribly despite never having actually “sinned”.

When asked WHY did and all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God do it that way, especially considering that 150 years ago no one believed the above, including Jesus, Moses, the great Christian thinkers, the popes, the saints, and on and on - your response is nothing more than “Well, God works in mysterious ways”.

Can you understand the massive skepticism your position evokes?
Maybe it is time time rethink the concept of Original Sin?
This completely misunderstands the well rounded Catholic position. Not sure how to respond.
 
Well, quite obviously, a perfect designer would not create an imperfect creature.
Not obvious. Not manifest. What is obvious is that a perfect designer creates what he intends – and he does so perfectly!

You’re going to have to do better than that, if you want to substantiate “perfect designer entails perfect creation”.
And clearly a creature that goes extinct is imperfect.
Evolution doesn’t even make that claim! Let’s suppose that the dinosaurs were ‘perfect’. Does the fact that an asteroid hits earth, destroying their environment, make them “imperfect”? Of course not! A “change in environment” isn’t an “imperfection”, is it?
And I didn’t say evil - I said SUFFERING
I haven’t even gotten to that yet. 😉

I’m merely pointing out that you haven’t demonstrated that extinction is ‘bad’. (‘Evil’ would be the next step in attempting to demonstrate God’s ‘impotence’, but you’re nowhere near that…)
 
They are literal. The link you provided hinges the entire argument on “we don’t know what it means but it couldn’t mean what you said it means, just because” and the only real source is “dude trust me”. Yet these long lifespans fit quite well with other historic events, archaeology, and other stories in the Bible. Such as Noah’s genetic bottleneck, the division of languages (we know without a doubt that there are many languages with no evolutionary ancestor or link to any other languages). As we know without a doubt that God exists, and the Bible is the word of God, and that God cannot lie, therefore the Bible is true, we have a reliable lens and measuring stick through which to view any other discoveries or theories.
 
Catholic teaching is sometimes ambiguous intentionally or unintentionally and prefers to err on the side of caution. I can find no dogmatic statement requiring me to believe that the Bible is fictional, since that’s what you’re asserting. The article linked is the personal opinion of one priest. No disrespect intended to him but he is still a man and therefore can be wrong. No doubt there are priests who have written at some point that the Bible is true, they are equally as much a Catholic source as the link you provided, yet that would be a contradiction and only one can be right.
 
God created/designed a universe where man and angels were given choice. He also designed heaven for those who choose it.
 
You are the one claiming the designer is perfect, not me.
God is perfect
God created the universe
The universe is not God
Therefore the universe cannot by definition be perfect. It is a conditioned reality.
 
In a nutshell, bad design means either:
  1. The designer is not perfect
  2. The designer is not omnipotent
  3. The designer is not omniscient
So if you admit there is evidence of bad design in the fossil record, the “designer” - if he did exist - clearly cannot be the Christian God.
Totally wrong. You are looking at it without knowing the designed purpose.

But now you agree bad design is still design. Good.
 
If Adam did not have a mother and was not born, then there is a conflict with evolution.
And we know evolution is true because it has been proven over and over again.
There has never been an instance were the general concept of evolution has been shown to be false.
The evidence for evolution is also the evidence against it, so it is a matter of just picking sides and i can see you have blindly chosen a myth but you can help me settle this one.

Let’s apply deductive reasoning:

If all organisms ‘share’ the same species with their ‘parents’, then going back to the common ancestor, there can only be one species.

True or false?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top