Can science prove the world is over 4 billion yrs. old?

[buffalo]

These are interpreted spiritually.

 

[buffalo]

Ask Mary?

There is no scientific problem with us all being descended from a single couple. There is a huge scientific problem with us all being descended only from a single couple.

rossum

There is no scientific problem with us all being descended from a single couple. - Good.

There is a huge scientific problem with us all being descended only from a single couple. - What does science say happened to all the others?

 

[rossum]

Then you have to convince the Catholic Church to undo the following:

1. The first man was created by God. (De fide.)

Not a scientific question.

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

Not a problem for science. We are indeed all descended from a single pair. The question is about people like Cain’s wife and Seth’s wife whose descent is not given in the Bible.

1. Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
2. The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
3. Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
4. Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
5. A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
6. The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
7. God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
8. Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)

Souls, the supernatural and grace are not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

1. The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
2. The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
3. The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
4. The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

Has science made any statements about these? Is there any conflict here?

1. Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)

Grace is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

1. Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
2. Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)

Sin is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

1. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

Science agrees that all humans are subject to death. Sin is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

1. Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
2. Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
3. Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
4. In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)

Sin is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

1. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

Souls are not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

Your list includes far too many irrelevant items. Is it that you are trying to give the impression of more of a conflict than there really is?

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is no scientific problem with us all being descended from a single couple. - Good.

There is a huge scientific problem with us all being descended only from a single couple. - What does science say happened to all the others?

You are descended from your great great great grandparents. That is sixteen couples. You are descended from each of those couples. Go far enough back in human history and you can divide the entire human population into two groups:* ancestor of everyone alive in 2011.

• not an ancestor of anybody alive in 2011.

For humans this point is between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago. Before that point any couple in the first group are the ancestors of all humans alive today. See Identical ancestors point.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

You are descended from your great great great grandparents. That is sixteen couples. You are descended from each of those couples. Go far enough back in human history and you can divide the entire human population into two groups:

• ancestor of everyone alive in 2011.
• not an ancestor of anybody alive in 2011.

For humans this point is between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago. Before that point any couple in the first group are the ancestors of all humans alive today. See Identical ancestors point.

rossum

Thanks.

Science backs a literal Adam and Eve (a first couple) who we are all descended from, therefore the Doctrine of Original Sin is still intact at this point. As far as this goes it also meets the biblical timeline as well as the rise of civilizations timeline.

The sticky issue is whether Adam and Eve had parents.

 

[buffalo]

Not a scientific question.

Not a problem for science. We are indeed all descended from a single pair. The question is about people like Cain’s wife and Seth’s wife whose descent is not given in the Bible.

Souls, the supernatural and grace are not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

Has science made any statements about these? Is there any conflict here?

Grace is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

Sin is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

Science agrees that all humans are subject to death. Sin is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

Sin is not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

Souls are not amenable to scientific enquiry. There is no conflict here.

Your list includes far too many irrelevant items. Is it that you are trying to give the impression of more of a conflict than there really is?

rossum

No - I simply cut and pasted The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or “Christian Anthropology” . However, it is a worthwhile exercise to see which of these is subject to science, so it worked out.

If Cain and Seth’s wives are not covered by Original Sin then we may have individuals among us without OS. Catholic dogma states we all have the stain. Catholic understanding is that God allowed brother and sister to marry.

So God creating Adam and Eve supernaturally and inserting them in the timeline is still open. Also, many Catholics do not know/remember the preternatural gifts they possessed, such as bodily immortality, freedom from sickness and irregular desire, etc…

 

[Lui]

Assuming that all 6 billion humans are the descendants of Adam and Eve, what ethnic group were Adam and Eve and how did black Africans, Asians, Europeans etc. develop in this short period?

 

[buffalo]

Assuming that all 6 billion humans are the descendants of Adam and Eve, what ethnic group were Adam and Eve and how did black Africans, Asians, Europeans etc. develop in this short period?

I am glad you asked.

First off, races are adaptations and do not require long ages.

Yes, population models show that 6 billion is reasonable starting from a single couple within the last 10000 years.

The interesting question is why are there so few humans today for the long ages scenario?

 

[hecd2]

Thanks.

Science backs a literal Adam and Eve (a first couple) who we are all descended from, therefore the Doctrine of Original Sin is still intact at this point. As far as this goes it also meets the biblical timeline as well as the rise of civilizations timeline.

The sticky issue is whether Adam and Eve had parents.

No the sticky issue is as follows. Science backs the idea of common ancestors - ie individuals from whom all humans alive today are descended. The parent of any common ancestor is necessarily also a common ancestor. What science does not back is the idea that there was ever a couple who were the *sole *ancestors of all humans alive today - science demonstrates that the population who were ancestors of humans alive today never fell below several thousand breeding individuals in the last several million years. In fact scientific findings demonstrate that the idea that all humans today are descended from a single couple who are the sole anscestors of humans in their generation is not tenable. That’s the sticky issue.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

No the sticky issue is as follows. Science backs the idea of common ancestors - ie individuals from whom all humans alive today are descended. The parent of any common ancestor is necessarily also a common ancestor. What science does not back is the idea that there was ever a couple who were the *sole *ancestors of all humans alive today - science demonstrates that the population who were ancestors of humans alive today never fell below several thousand breeding individuals in the last several million years. In fact scientific findings demonstrate that the idea that all humans today are descended from a single couple who are the sole anscestors of humans in their generation is not tenable. That’s the sticky issue.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Then science is claiming that Adam and Eve had parents.

Maybe you just jumped in but you will find post 433 awful familiar.

By the way, how have you been?

 

[rossum]

If Cain and Seth’s wives are not covered by Original Sin then we may have individuals among us without OS.

Why? Seth was descended from Adam and Eve so he had Original Sin. All his children were descended from a father with Original Sin so they will have inherited Original Sin from their father. All of Seth’s children had Adam and Eve as their grandparents. All of Seth’s grandchildren had Adam and Eve as their great-grandparents, and so on down the generations. All of Seth’s descendants had Adam and Eve as ancestors.

Catholic understanding is that God allowed brother and sister to marry.

So the prohibition on brother-sister incest is relative morality, not absolute morality?

rossum

 

[hecd2]

Then science is claiming that Adam and Eve had parents.

That’s not the point. The point is that there was not a generation in which there were two sole ancestors of humans living. In any given generation we are descended from thousands of individuals. We did not have two sole ancestors.

Maybe you just jumped in but you will find post 433 awful familiar.

Yeah just jumped in. I see you posted Bonnette’s argument without telling everyone that later in the thread that you pulled that from I showed why those arguments of his are flawed. Naughty buffalo!

By the way, how have you been?

I’ve been fine, thank you. I hope you’ve been well and happy yourself. I’ve been too busy to spend time going over the same old, but enjoying dropping in once every few months or so. Just to keep you on your toes

 

[rossum]

Yeah just jumped in. I see you posted Bonnette’s argument without telling everyone that later in the thread that you pulled that from I showed why those arguments of his are flawed. Naughty buffalo!

“I am shocked, shocked to find that quotemining is going on in here!”

rossum

 

[buffalo]

That’s not the point. The point is that there was not a generation in which there were two sole ancestors of humans living. In any given generation we are descended from thousands of individuals. We did not have two sole ancestors.
Yeah just jumped in. I see you posted Bonnette’s argument without telling everyone that later in the thread that you pulled that from I showed why those arguments of his are flawed. Naughty buffalo!

I’ve been fine, thank you. I hope you’ve been well and happy yourself. I’ve been too busy to spend time going over the same old, but enjoying dropping in once every few months or so. Just to keep you on your toes

I did give the link. No problem here with looking at both sides of the argument.

Thanks a lot…

I

 

[buffalo]

“I am shocked, shocked to find that quotemining is going on in here!”

rossum

There is a limit on post size, don’t ya know.

I couldn’t resist:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how … Richard Feynman defined science in his article “What is Science?”… Feynman wrote: “When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it…you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.” And I say, Amen.-- Frank J. Tipler, Prof of Physics, Tulane Univ., in Pajamas Media 07/27/2010.

 

[rossum]

There is a limit on post size, don’t ya know.

I couldn’t resist:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how … Richard Feynman defined science in his article “What is Science?”… Feynman wrote: “When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it…you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.” And I say, Amen.-- Frank J. Tipler, Prof of Physics, Tulane Univ., in Pajamas Media 07/27/2010.

“There is no God” - The Bible.

rossum

 

[Dan_Daly]

Not true. There is no genetic evidence that humanity was ever reduced to a single breeding pair. This is called an “extreme genetic bottleneck,” which – if it had occurred – would have left an indelible signature in the human genome. There is no such signature. The evidence points to a population that never fell significantly below 3,000 breeding pairs in the last several hundred thousand years.

You can of course reject this, but you reject genetic science in doing so. You can also adhere to a literal reading of the “Noah’s Flood” myth, but in so doing you reject the conclusions of the sciences of geology, hydrology, biology, and physics.

I choose (with popes, bishops, and priests) to emphasize the spiritual and theological truths of these texts, rather than forcing upon them a woodenly literal reading.

StAnastasia

Polygenism is heresy. I have shown you the Pope specifically condemning it. You have the free will to believe or not believe it, but you do not have the authority to decide what is or is not heresy. If you choose to adhere to polygenism, you are adhering to an idea condemned as heresy.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Assuming that all 6 billion humans are the descendants of Adam and Eve, what ethnic group were Adam and Eve and how did black Africans, Asians, Europeans etc. develop in this short period?

People clustered into different groups after the fall of the Tower of Babel. Because of language barriers as well as the influence of sin, men clustered in groups and were suspicious of “outsiders” to a large degree. This leads to breeding within localized groups, which in turn led to certain genetic traits (skin color, hair color, etc) being more prominent in one group than in another.

Pax.

 

[StAnastasia]

Polygenism is heresy. I have shown you the Pope specifically condemning it.

Sorry, but any such condemnation is based on woefully outdated scientific knowledge. I’ll take science over superstition in this instance.

 

[StAnastasia]

People clustered into different groups after the fall of the Tower of Babel. Because of language barriers as well as the influence of sin, men clustered in groups and were suspicious of “outsiders” to a large degree. This leads to breeding within localized groups, which in turn led to certain genetic traits (skin color, hair color, etc) being more prominent in one group than in another. Pax.

The Babel story is a myth, a symbolic story.