Chesterton, Adam and Eve, and the Fall

[William9999]

Chesterton, in “The Everlasting Man” affirmed the humanity of the pre-historic European cave artists. Art, wrote Chesterton, is the signiture of Man.
If he was right, the artists must have been descendents of Adam and Eve. Chesterton did not know that the cave art was painted 35,000 years ago; we know this by C14 dating.
I can see only three possible conclusions:

1. Chesterton was wrong. The cave painters were not humans, but hominids with extraordinary skill in art. The story of Adam and Eve occurred much later.
2. Chesterton was right. The story of Adam and Eve occurred before the cave
   paintings, and was passed along by oral tradition for about 30,000 years.
3. The story of Adam and Eve is a myth. It points to a very important truth about human nature, never more powerfully expressed than by St. Paul in Romans 7, 14-24. We don’t
   know how we got into our predicament. Verse 25 tells us how to get out.

 

[tm30]

Chesterton, in “The Everlasting Man” affirmed the humanity of the pre-historic European cave artists. Art, wrote Chesterton, is the signiture of Man.
If he was right, the artists must have been descendents of Adam and Eve. Chesterton did not know that the cave art was painted 35,000 years ago; we know this by C14 dating.
I can see only three possible conclusions:

1. Chesterton was wrong. The cave painters were not humans, but hominids with extraordinary skill in art. The story of Adam and Eve occurred much later.
2. Chesterton was right. The story of Adam and Eve occurred before the cave
   paintings, and was passed along by oral tradition for about 30,000 years.
3. The story of Adam and Eve is a myth. It points to a very important truth about human nature, never more powerfully expressed than by St. Paul in Romans 7, 14-24. We don’t
   know how we got into our predicament. Verse 25 tells us how to get out.

Ironically, carbon dating has to be taken completely on faith, too, since none of us were around 30,000 years ago to prove its accuracy, either.

The answer is possibly 1, most likely 2 - however, you presume 30,000 years of handed down oral tradition, whereas the Holy Spirit could have simply inspired the oral tradition and subsequent written account out of the blue.

 

[William9999]

Dear tm30:
Carbon dating is not based on faith. I will explain it briefly.
All living creatures - plants, animals, humans - are constantly exchanging carbon with the environment by metabolism and respiration. This carbon contains three isotopes. Call it living carbon for short. After death the exchange stops. C14 begins to decay to C12, with a half life of 5730 years.
Plant pigments from the cave paintings contain 3.1 % of the C14 in living carbon. This represents 5.3 C14 half lives, about 30,000 years.
Libby won the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1960 for carbon dating.
My conclusion 3 does not rule out the inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the writing of Genesis. But the writers used the literary methods of their time.

 

[Nita]

Dear tm30:
Carbon dating is not based on faith. I will explain it briefly.
All living creatures - plants, animals, humans - are constantly exchanging carbon with the environment by metabolism and respiration. This carbon contains three isotopes. Call it living carbon for short. After death the exchange stops. C14 begins to decay to C12, with a half life of 5730 years.
Plant pigments from the cave paintings contain 3.1 % of the C14 in living carbon. This represents 5.3 C14 half lives, about 30,000 years.
Libby won the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1960 for carbon dating.
My conclusion 3 does not rule out the inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the writing of Genesis. But the writers used the literary methods of their time.

So, are there circumstances that could affect the rate of C14 decay?
Eg. extreme temps; exposure to long term (or short term) stronger or weaker radiation than that present in current, normal environment; variation from current gravitational attraction experienced by material objects on earth; infiltration (of test body or object) by some other living organism; …

My understanding is that carbon dating rests on the presumption of an environment unchanged from the present one. Something ironic in the thought that evolution, which relies on “change” in one area, seems to disregard, or deny the idea of change in another area.

 

[Benadam]

Pope JPII taught about Adam as mankind collectively learning that he was not like anyof the other animals. This speaks of a time when the higher faculties, formerly reserved to angels, were developing and as yet too inexperienced to realize the functionionality required for man to begin the purposes of God for himself.

 

[Nita]

Pope JPII taught about Adam as mankind collectively learning that he was not like anyof the other animals. This speaks of a time when the higher faculties, formerly reserved to angels, were developing and as yet too inexperienced to realize the functionionality required for man to begin the purposes of God for himself.

Are you speaking of his general audience talks/exegesis on Genesis? I’m referring to the ones now collected and included in the book titled “Theology of the Body” (The same talks that were published earlier under the title “Original Unity of Man and Woman”). I’ve read those talks a couple of times and never got the sense that he was speaking of mankind collectively - but rather of an individual person, Adam.

Perhaps these are not the teachings you’re referring to. If they are, could you perhaps refer me to the section/s where you interpret him as referring to Adam in the garden of Eden as mankind collectively and not an individual person?

Thanks in advance,
Nita

 

[Benadam]

Are you speaking of his general audience talks/exegesis on Genesis? I’m referring to the ones now collected and included in the book titled “Theology of the Body” (The same talks that were published earlier under the title “Original Unity of Man and Woman”). I’ve read those talks a couple of times and never got the sense that he was speaking of mankind collectively - but rather of an individual person, Adam.

Perhaps these are not the teachings you’re referring to. If they are, could you perhaps refer me to the section/s where you interpret him as referring to Adam in the garden of Eden as mankind collectively and not an individual person?

Thanks in advance,
Nita

Nita, yes.Same audiences. I I reference the Pope’s explanation of the time when Adam was alone. He did uinclude explanations that conceptualized Adam as mankind.

 

[Benadam]

I should include for Nita that the naming of the animals was in JPII’s theology included a ‘knowing’ and that in that knowing Adam as mankind begins to understand himself as distinct. Nita, I will find the sections when I have more time if this doesn’t help you p(name removed by moderator)oint them yourself.

 

[Nita]

Nita, yes.Same audiences. I I reference the Pope’s explanation of the time when Adam was alone. He did uinclude explanations that conceptualized Adam as mankind.

That (“The Meaning of Man’s Original Solitude”) is one of my favorite sections of the book. I guess because until I read his writing, I had never stopped to think what it must have been like to be the only human being in existence.

**John Paul is not speaking collectively. If he were, there would not have been an experience of “solitude”. **He makes the point that Adam’s solitude is not just based on a desire, or lack of, someone of a different gender, but primarily, a solitude caused by a desire for another human.

The following is a quote from that chapter:
…So when God-Yahweh speaks the words about solitude, it is in reference to the solitude of “man” as such, and not just to that of the male.

…Nevertheless, the complete context of that solitude of which Genesis 2:18 speaks can convince us that it is a question here of the solitude of “man” (male and female) and not just of the solitude of man the male, caused by the lack of woman. Therefore, on the basis of the whole context, it seems that this solitude has two meanings: one derived from man’s very nature, that is, from his humanity, and the ot****her derived from the male-female relationship. …

 

[Nita]

Wanted to comment on the section I quoted (and too late to edit).

When Pope John II says ’ “man” as such’ and ’ “man” (male and female)’ it is equivalent to saying man as a human being or person who is a member of the human race. (That is, in a way that is not gender specific, but encompasses both.) Since, in ordinary speech, “man” most often is used in a gender specific way, he seems to be clarifying to the audience that he is using the term in the broad sense.

 

[RSD]

Dear tm30:
Carbon dating is not based on faith. I will explain it briefly.
All living creatures - plants, animals, humans - are constantly exchanging carbon with the environment by metabolism and respiration. This carbon contains three isotopes. Call it living carbon for short. After death the exchange stops. C14 begins to decay to C12, with a half life of 5730 years.
Plant pigments from the cave paintings contain 3.1 % of the C14 in living carbon. This represents 5.3 C14 half lives, about 30,000 years.
Libby won the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1960 for carbon dating.
My conclusion 3 does not rule out the inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the writing of Genesis. But the writers used the literary methods of their time.

Believe me, and I speak from experience, if you don’t have enough educational background to understand radioisotopes you have to take carbon dating on faith. The people who object to carbon dating as a way of understanding evolution, or the age of the earth, or many other so called controversial issues are not going to get enough educational background on this thread. Or any other online forum. It would be easy at this point to hijack the thread to the fundamental flaws of public education, but I will resist.

 

[William9999]

I am a little more optimistic than RSD on the chance of explaining
carbon dating. I can only refer to Nita’s first message, in which she
proposes why carbon dating could go wrong.

1. Extremes of temperature. Over the last 100,000 years, changes
   of 200 Celsius have occurred. This has strongly affected chemical
   reactions, but C14 decay is a nuclear reaction and is not affected.
2. Exposure of the surface of the earth to radiation. Yes, an intense
   neutron shower would have drastically affected C14 decay. But in order
   for the neutrons to reach the earth, the atmosphere would have to be
   removed. All life would have ended.
3. Gravitation is too weak to affect any of the other three fundamental
   forces of the universe.
4. Infiltration. It is possible that bacteria attacked the pigments 10,000
   years ago and died. This would mean that the true age of the pigment is
   greater than the measured age. I believe Nita is seeking an error that
   works in the opposite direction.
   I can’t comment on the dialog between Nita and Benedem, not having
   read JPII’s book.

 

[Benadam]

Wanted to comment on the section I quoted (and too late to edit).

When Pope John II says ’ “man” as such’ and ’ “man” (male and female)’ it is equivalent to saying man as a human being or person who is a member of the human race. (That is, in a way that is not gender specific, but encompasses both.) Since, in ordinary speech, “man” most often is used in a gender specific way, he seems to be clarifying to the audience that he is using the term in the broad sense.

It is also significant that the first man ('adam), created from “dust from the ground,” is defined as a “male” ('is) only after the creation of the first woman. So when God-Yahweh speaks the words about solitude, it is in reference to the solitude of “man” as such, and not just to that of the male.(1)

All this happened before Eve revealed Adam’s masculinity. It is also curious that 'dust of the groundis mentioned since dust refers to multitudes of living creatures hearafter in scripture.

Since Adam is male/female as an individual person to say this solitiude does not referer just to the male but to the solitude of ‘man’ seems a device that keeps from locking in this enterpretation. Not that Adam does not personify bodily all humanity, including woman, as an individual, but that the exclusion of Adam conceptualized as mankind was not intended for the passage being meditated on either.

The sense of the Holy Father’s words seems to leave the text open. If that was meant the several times it is written it would be written ’ a man’ at least once with the appropriate qualifying statements insuring that it is understood as 'a man who is at the same time man '. That this isn’t done allows the freedom that a primal myth revealing the truth man’s origin respective of it being still a mystery demands.

Anyway, Adam of course was ‘a man’ and also ‘man’. I believe JPII was being carefull not to box in what the author may have been conceptualizing. I don’t believe the proper enterpretation demands that Adam as an individual and Adam as man is mutually exclusive. Especially since the author’s of the two traditions were most likely witness to Adam viewed through the lense of mankind of their time focused by their respective traditions and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Nita]

I am a little more optimistic than RSD on the chance of explaining
carbon dating. I can only refer to Nita’s first message, in which she
proposes why carbon dating could go wrong.

1. Extremes of temperature. Over the last 100,000 years, changes
   of 200 Celsius have occurred. This has strongly affected chemical
   reactions, but C14 decay is a nuclear reaction and is not affected.
2. Exposure of the surface of the earth to radiation. Yes, an intense
   neutron shower would have drastically affected C14 decay. But in order
   for the neutrons to reach the earth, the atmosphere would have to be
   removed. All life would have ended.
3. Gravitation is too weak to affect any of the other three fundamental
   forces of the universe.
4. Infiltration. It is possible that bacteria attacked the pigments 10,000
   years ago and died. This would mean that the true age of the pigment is
   greater than the measured age. I believe Nita is seeking an error that
   works in the opposite direction.
   I can’t comment on the dialog between Nita and Benedem, not having
   read JPII’s book.

**I wasn’t proposing what could go wrong ( I don’t have the actual knowledge to do that) ----- I was asking **what factors could effect the rate of carbon 14 decay? (sticking in a few ideas that crossed my mind - and I didn’t even give some of the wilder ones! If it was an “educated” mind I’m sure there would have been a lot more ideas!)

So, if you’re one of those educated minds, just hypothesize a little for me. What could possibly cause carbon dating tests to be false? What factors could actually affect it? There have to be areas that go beyond the limited ones I came up with. Eg. assume the awesome concentration of energy/matter present if the big bang is what happened. What effects could that have?

Thanks in advance,
Nita

 

[William9999]

Dear Nita:
Thank you for your courtesy.
When I say or hear the words in the Creed: “…through Him all things were
made” I sometimes think of that point of infinite energy and temperature at
the beginning of time. That point needed a lot of work before characters
like us could show up and wander around asking questions. Therefore I
believe that creation is continuous. From our angle it has taken an awfully
long time, 13 billion years or so. From His angle, since he is outside of time,
it is somehow all simultaneous. This is very hard to imagine. Maybe we
will understand it better when we get outside of time ourselves, after we
die.

 

[Nita]

Dear Nita:
Thank you for your courtesy.
When I say or hear the words in the Creed: “…through Him all things were
made” I sometimes think of that point of infinite energy and temperature at
the beginning of time. That point needed a lot of work before characters
like us could show up and wander around asking questions. Therefore I
believe that creation is continuous. From our angle it has taken an awfully
long time, 13 billion years or so. From His angle, since he is outside of time,
it is somehow all simultaneous. This is very hard to imagine. Maybe we
will understand it better when we get outside of time ourselves, after we
die.

I’m sure we will.
Been nice chatting with you here and look forward to meeting you when we’re “outside of time”.

Meanwhile, when I get the time, I intend to do some reading on Carbon 14, etc. (Thanks to internet and google! )
Loved physics in high school - my favorite subject many, many years ago…

 

[Benadam]

If the offerings of Cain and Abel are considered types of their mode of living , responses to the curse upon their father that they will sweat to survive, Adam and Eve may have had to become hunter gatherers and Cain and Abel are developements of that that are approved or rejected.

It makes sense to me that Adam and Eve may have had to do what the ‘other’ animals were doing . And again, that their sons would develope advance methods exercising those higher faculties
:twocents:

 

[RSD]

If the offerings of Cain and Abel are considered types of their mode of living , responses to the curse upon their father that they will sweat to survive, Adam and Eve may have had to become hunter gatherers and Cain and Abel are developements of that that are approved or rejected.

It makes sense to me that Adam and Eve may have had to do what the ‘other’ animals were doing . And again, that their sons would develope advance methods exercising those higher faculties
:twocents:

It is entirely inconsistent with Scripture to think that the reason Cain’s offering was rejected was because he was offering the fruits of his farm. Cain’s offering was rejected because he did not offer his heart to God. This is in no way a rejection of farming or farm products. It is through farming that we get “fruit of the vine which earth has given and human hands have made.” We need farmers in order to have communion.

 

[RSD]

It is entirely inconsistent with Scripture to think that the reason Cain’s offering was rejected was because he was offering the fruits of his farm. Cain’s offering was rejected because he did not offer his heart to God. This is in no way a rejection of farming or farm products. It is through farming that we get “fruit of the vine which earth has given and human hands have made.” We need farmers in order to have communion.

Sorry, I meant “fruit of the vine and work of human hands”. Or “this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made.” The point is the same.

 

[rcjones]

So, if you’re one of those educated minds, just hypothesize a little for me. What could possibly cause carbon dating tests to be false? What factors could actually affect it? There have to be areas that go beyond the limited ones I came up with. Eg. assume the awesome concentration of energy/matter present if the big bang is what happened. What effects could that have?

Thanks in advance,
Nita

Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

Krane, Kenneth S., Introductory Nuclear Physics, Wiley, 1987.

It might just as easily be suggested that the past of carbon dating is not reliable, since at the time that the “fountains of the deep” sprung up during the flood, that so-called fossil-fuels also could have spurted up and even been burned since there was so much volcanic activity around as well.

Beside, no one knows what proportion of radio isotopes were available in the air, or under ground at the time of creation.

Yep. Takes faith to believe in carbon dating.