F
Faith1960
Guest
Sure, it means that Adam and Eve MIGHT be the only two people all humans descended from, or they might NOT be.
- Status
T
twinc
Guest
depends what you mean by Church and why but if we substitute Bible for Church then the Church is infallible and inerrant where the Bible touches on scientific matters - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
and also invisible dark matter that cannot possibly be there since science itself dematerialised matter - a bit like finding a black cat,that isn’t there in a dark room - daft I call it - twinc
B
Benadam
Guest
Since the human dimension includes a state of life that does not submit to the powers of nature as does our fallen state, and since that state of human life is nonhistoric and shrouded from our view, I’m surprised that anyone would think that scientific explanations, whether accurate or incomplete, could dismantle the teachings that surround Adam and Eve and Original Sin. There are many possibilities that are simply shrouded from our view.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I word your answer this way. A possibility means that something could exist. Possibility for Adam would always be phrased as a positive since it is phrased as a positive in Church doctrine.
Here are the American Heritage College Dictionary definitions of possibility. 1. “The fact or state of being possible.” 2. "Something that is possible. 3. “**possibilities **potentiality for favorable or interesting results”
Definitions for possible. 1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting facts, laws, or circumstances. 2.Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom. 3. Capable of favorable development; potential. 4. of uncertain likelihood.
Yes, you said all of this succinctly. Thank you. However, we need to have as much info about “possibility” as possible; otherwise, a poster will pop in and tell us that pink unicorns are the same possibility as Adam.
In addition, the above definitions can give us clues as to how we can demonstrate Adam’s possibility. I use the word demonstrate because of the posts that have argued over the words, prove and proof. Besides, a demonstration allows us to use our rational faculties.
Taking the positive position that Adam existed gives us a leg up since our human nature is the same human nature transmitted from Adam by propagation. We know right away that God called Adam, as the first true human, to share in His life through knowledge and love. As descendants of Adam, we are made in God’s image. We have a spiritual soul. The reality of Adam assures each and every person that he or she is called to be in God’s presence forever. Recall that Jesus Christ hung bleeding on a cross for all people.
What both of us need to do is to fit Adam into the definitions of possibility. We need to put aside actual science research for the moment – we will get to that later.
I would like to know your thoughts about considering Adam as a real possibility.
In the meantime, hopefully, someone will answer the question raised in post 19.
Question for those who actually do scientific research or who read actual research papers. How would you relate the word possibility to falsifiable? And please give your definition of falsifiable and how it works in your research area. Thank you.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Maybe this debate of monogenism/polygenism isn’t as big a deal as some people, myself included feel it is. Jimmy Akin seems to consider various ideas on the origins of man.
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/monogenism_scie.html
jimmyakin.org/2006/01/a_reader_writes.html
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/monogenism_scie.html
jimmyakin.org/2006/01/a_reader_writes.html
K
kepha1
Guest
First of all, Monogenesis is enjoined on us because there is no clear way in the minds of the Popes to reconcile Polygenesis with the doctrine of the Sin of our first parents and the Fall. If there were a way to do so, then it could be allowed. Several scholars have proposed solutions but none have been accepted.
Secondly, if God truly made a first pair of humans by a special act of creation, it is possible that he “reset” their genetics to make it “safe” to practice incest at least for the first several generations. God could even have given them “low probability” genetic combinations at first to prevent problems.
In one of his Lazarus Long novels Robert Heinlein describes a brother and sister of the same parents who share NO genes in common. They each received half of their parents genes but none from the same half. Now there are a virtually infinite number of combinations you can make like that from just two parents. And then you can get variants where only 0.1% genes are held in common and any fraction in between that and 100%.
That may be how God did it in the beginning. This would take several generations of miracles, but it would royally screw up all the attendant probabilities. None of the scientists takes this possibility into account.
And then we need to be frank. We know very little about human origins. It appears that BIOLOGICAL humans of some kind have been around for about 2 million years give or take). BIOLOGICAL Homo sapiens has been around for ~130,000 years. But there is something very strange that happened between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago. Homo sapiens became an artist, a linguist, a complex tool maker, a religious believer, a member of a society with family structures and pair-bonds, and several other things that distinguish him from the BIOLOGICAL humans that came before. Was this new kind of H. sapiens not only BIOLOGICALY human but newly made as THEOLOGICALLY human? Was this the historical point of ensoulment? I think so.
And after that happened, the other species of man all died out and were replaced by the New Man. So if THEOLOGICAL humans arose not from pre-humans but WITHIN a BIOLOGICALLY human community in which they kept to themselves, the issue of Polygenism becomes moot.
These are just some of the possibilities.
Another note on Dr. Collin’s book. He warns that a Fundamentalist literal reading of Genesis is dangerous because when a naive believer discovers the overwhelming scientific case for evolution, it can endanger his faith. Well, here we are! What he predicted has happened.
The problem is neither in science or religion but rather in a type of religion that does not respect the important distinctions between science and theology.
Humility is the point to be taken. We are not asked by God to understand all things but rather to believe in some things. Sometimes belief is easy. Sometimes it is hard. that is why one must have a prayer life and devotions to keep one properly in touch with God and His providence.
Dr. Art Sippo
G
grannymh
Guest
With respect for the ban on evolution discussion. Catholic doctrine teaches that true human nature, in itself, is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. On the other hand, science, per definition, presides only in the material/physical world. Scientific evidence can be based on a variety of assumptions and estimates arising from limited information dating backwards millions of years.
What needs to be remembered is that valid conclusions pertain only to individual evidence, methods, and materials,* listed* in the particular research paper.
Given the limitations imposed by length of time and the huge amount of space on earth, the material evidence in a published research paper does not warrant an extrapolation to an universal conclusion. Thus, the possibility exists that two real, sole, humans founded the human species. The possibility of Adam and Eve increases in strength when one examines human nature unencumbered by materialistic restrictions of science.
Personally, I have deep respect for scientists. Science has benefited humanity in many ways. Nonetheless, we need to remove our rose-colored glasses and see science as it is meant to be.
R
razredge
Guest
There is no real possibility (though you can certainly pretend there is) any more that we are descended from just two individuals as there is positive evidence that we are descended from more than two ancestors.
So the only options for those insisting there is such a possibility are that the scientific evidence is wrong (and they have to show why) or that God is deceiving us by fabricating misleading evidence.
So the only options for those insisting there is such a possibility are that the scientific evidence is wrong (and they have to show why) or that God is deceiving us by fabricating misleading evidence.
H
highcalling
Guest
I think you’re problem has to do with too much faith in men who claim to be scientists but who ignore the scientific method in favor of philosophy. This article and exchange should be extremely helpful to you:
catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/58/576
God bless you!
hc
catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/58/576
God bless you!
hc
G
grannymh
Guest
First of all, before one can rule out the possibility of two sole parents, one must understand the evidence which is being presented in a particular published research project. In other words, saying that there is loads of evidence does not cut it in the real scientific world.
The top scientific journals are peer reviewed. This means that both materials and methods are evaluated. An example was when a particular research paper was criticized for sloppy record keeping. This meant that either the research conclusion was right in spite of the sloppy record keeping or that the research conclusion was not warranted because the record keeping had errors. In either case, the evidence could have been right in itself; but either rightly or wrongly used.
Real scientists are not limited by the one option that evidence is either right or wrong.
There are a lot of other factors that go into determining a scientific conclusion. There is the possibility that the evidence is right but the conclusion does not necessarily have to be right.
There is also the possibility that the listed evidence is right and the conclusion flowing from the presented evidence is right but what is wrong is that the conclusion is applied universally without adequate evidence to do so.
All that empirical research --which people like to talk about-- has specific evidence and specific methods including assumptions and estimates which make up simulated populations since the real populations are no longer living close by. The scientist carefully chooses assumptions and estimates which she or he believes to be the most likely accurate ones.
Currently, there are many posts which proclaim in some form – The only two options for the possibility for two sole parents are that 1. the scientific evidence is wrong (and it has to be shown why) or 2. that God is deceiving us by fabricating misleading evidence–
As I have shown, real scientific research has many facets to be considered in terms of right and wrong.
T
twinc
Guest
much ado about nothing since the world itself is only a few thousand years old - except in the eyes and reckonings of pseudo/phoney science posing in the guise of true science as I read it has already tried to con us with cons,fakes,frauds,fiction and fantasy - twinc
G
grannymh
Guest
One of the reasons for proposed solutions not being accepted is that they do not insure that all, yes all, of humanity descended from the person who committed Original Sin.
The safeness is in the fact that genetic diseases take generations to develop. Given the fertility rate of both women and men, which would result in overlapping generations, it would not take long to get past incest.
It is about time that someone realizes that a “biological human” is not a human being with a human nature the same as ours. If anything, the scientific lingo “biological human” is a pre-human or a sub-human. Half human? Remember that science only reports what is in the material/physical realm which means scientific evidence refers only to anatomies.
These millions of years of scientific research only deal with the material anatomy of archaic beings.
On the other hand, human nature, in itself, is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world.
T
twinc
Guest
still,only,much ado about nothing - the world according to God,the Bible and true science,as I read it is only thousands of years old and not millions or billions as postulated by the pseudo/phoney science,in the guise of science but fraught with cons,fakes,frauds,fiction and fantasy - twinc
S
StAnastasia
Guest
At which professional conference will you be presenting your paper on this topic?
S
SanAgustin
Guest
Young Earth Creationist, **and **Catholic???
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
I just notice that people complain the most about phoney fraudulent science when it happens not to support the answer they want to hear, but then people trumpet the wonderful perfectly reasoned well-done science when it confirms the answer they want to hear.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes, it’s mind boggling, isn’t it? I wonder if creationist Catholics like this get flu shots every year to counter the evolving flu virus. If they do, they’re hypocrites.
- Status