Did people really live hundreds of years?

[Zipply]

clem wrote:

1. You don’t really understand what Granny said

Oh, I think I do. We can discuss if you like.

1. You would do well to read what people within the Church actually say about the topic. It does not match what you assert.
   Good place to start:
   ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

I’d love to know what you think is in contradiction. That reflection of JPII expands only slightly on HG. Here’s where I think it goes off the rails, and causes all discussion in threads like this to go off the rails:

1. With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator’s designs.

This is a great example of the kind of prose JPII haters (back when there were such people) really went ape over. By posing an ontological leap, are we not breaking up the physical continuity of evolution? Well, Saint JPII, I don’t know. The ontological leap you are referring to is caused by ensoulment, and the physical continuity you are referencing is the evolutionary sequence. So, it seems you are stating a simple truism:

Human beings have rational souls, animals don’t.

Not Earth shattering. Neither is the concept that you can’t discern the moment of ensoulment from fossils. At this time this was given, there was already a crisis in Catholic anthropology over polygenesis, and this talk completely sidesteps it.

No, the elephant in the room was then, and is now, that species don’t evolve in groups of two. In 1950, Pius XII was hoping evolution would prove to be a fad. It didn’t. In 1996, JPII did a little hand waving and glossed over the huge problem HG had created.

And, that’s the end of the story. Benedict’s great contribution was saying that the moment of ensoulment was when a human being could utter ‘Thou’ to God.

Great. HG is still insisting on two original parents. JPII and Benedict are fans of human evolution which DOES NOT propose two original parents, and cannot…because it’s biology.

So, yeah, posting a link to the 96 address to ‘explain Church teaching’ on human origins is pretty seriously lame.

 

[grannymh]

For General Information

Currently one of the key issues is the source of soulness. This is where Saint John Paul II directly opposes the popular science theory of the emergence of the “soul” from matter and not created directly by God or soulness is simply an epiphenomenon.

From the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

“incompatible with the truth” is strong language.

 

[Zipply]

That’s a real firm grasp of the obvious you have there, granny.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am not sure where this “gradual fall” idea came from.

Science does know each generation has 200 or so more deleterious mutations than the previous.

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"

It doesn’t look like anyone is reading that blog. The few comments posted are by someone named “Buffalo.” And those are often word-for-word what you’ve been posting here.

The fact that no reputable theologian (nor any other kind of theologian for that matter) has taken any interest in the blog might just indicate something.

 

[FrDavid96]

For General Information

Currently one of the key issues is the source of soulness. This is where Saint John Paul II directly opposes the popular science theory of the emergence of the “soul” from matter and not created directly by God or soulness is simply an epiphenomenon.

From the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

“incompatible with the truth” is strong language.

Yes. And since St John Paul the Great was not answering the question at hand, what he wrote (while certainly true) is not relevant to the topic.

No one here disputes that human beings have souls created by God.

Your argument goes like this:

Question: did people really live 900 years?
Grannymh: John Paul II says that our souls are created by God, therefore they did live 900 years.

Whether or not humans have souls (and we certainly do) does nothing to address the OPs question.

Your posts are classic, textbook examples of fallacies.

 

[grannymh]

Yes. And since St John Paul the Great was not answering the question at hand, what he wrote (while certainly true) is not relevant to the topic.

No one here disputes that human beings have souls created by God.

Your argument goes like this:

Question: did people really live 900 years?
Grannymh: John Paul II says that our souls are created by God, therefore they did live 900 years.

Whether or not humans have souls (and we certainly do) does nothing to address the OPs question.

Your posts are classic, textbook examples of fallacies.

May I respectfully point out that post 43 was **not **answering the question "Did people really live 900 years?

If you would kindly read post 42, it will become clear that post 43 was refuting the misinformation about St. John Paul II. For example. Below I put in bold just a taste of post 42. May I suggest re-reading both post 42 and section 5 of the address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.
From post 42.

No, the elephant in the room was then, and is now, that species don’t evolve in groups of two. In 1950, Pius XII was hoping evolution would prove to be a fad. It didn’t. In 1996, JPII did a little hand waving and glossed over the huge problem HG had created.
snip

Great. HG is still insisting on two original parents. JPII and Benedict are fans of human evolution which DOES NOT propose two original parents, and cannot…because it’s biology.

So, yeah, posting a link to** the 96 address** to ‘explain Church teaching’ on human origins **is pretty seriously lame. **

From section 5 of the address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996.

1. The Church’s magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29).

Post 43 is relevant to the thread because it is proper to respond to the implication that St. John Paul II did not understand the basics of the contemporary scientific theory regarding human nature per se.

In addition, this thread is asking about the material nature of the people named in the record of the descendants of Adam. Biology is a proper science when it comes to the material anatomy. The quote in post 43 serves as a necessary warning that the Catholic Church will not yield to the proposed theories of a material, not spiritual, soul.

However, we need to be careful when dealing with the assumption that there were no unusual human genomes at the beginning of human history. In my humble opinion, when it comes to the ages of the first generations of Adam’s descendants, we must not avoid Genesis 1: 28.

While we explore the ages of the people in the record of Adam’s descendants, we also have to explore the fact that the entire human species is called to share in God’s divine life. To insure the survival of the human species, it is possible that the first humans (Genesis 1: 28) could have lived longer than what we, in our century, consider possible. It is also possible that the way the ages are recorded is the literary means of honoring both the importance of survival and the fact that the Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis remained intact.

 

[clem456]

1. God breathed life into two original parents whom we call Adam and Eve. At God’s pleasure, in his own time, he created humanity. We believe he created humanity out of nothing, cause, well, God created everything from nothing.
2. Evolution is a well demonstrated process occurring throughout nature. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of evolutionary science. If God chose to allow billions of year of natural development before breathing life into our first parents, isn’t that his business??? Isn’t God outside of time? Isn’t a billion years as nothing to him?

These two are not incompatible at all. Faith and science cannot contradict each other.

Do posters here really believe the science of evolution restricts God’s power to create two first parents? Really?
God, who is omnipotent, cannot use the natural processes he created to form humanity in the way he wishes?
That is some weak conception of God, and it is ironic that you become the decision maker in this mysterious process rather than God. You doubt reason-able science, yet make your own reason the arbiter of these things.

Don’t forget, symbolism and allegory can present just as powerful truth as facts. If you don’t believe that, you should be ripping pages from your New Testament and burning them, because Jesus uses non-factual events all-the-time… to drive home truths that you might ignore at your own peril.

Back to the thread, there is no reason to believe that ancient peoples lived literally hundreds of years. Catholics are not required to believe that in a literal sense, and science has absolutely no proof whatsoever that extended age was a factual reality. Nonetheless, the bible indicates long life is a sign of wisdom, blessing, durability in virtue, etc…

You look for proof they lived hundreds of years, I’ll take some wisdom and virtue, thank you very much…I need those qualities. Living to 200 years, not so much.

 

[grannymh]

1. Evolution is a well demonstrated process occurring throughout nature. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of evolutionary science. If God chose to allow billions of year of natural development before breathing life into our first parents, isn’t that his business??? Isn’t God outside of time? Isn’t a billion years as nothing to him?

I do not intend to be rude. But it is time that Catholics update themselves as to what is happening in the natural science realm of human origin and human nature. The era of the Piltdown Man ended years ago. We now have the “demonstrated process” of the Cladistics system, based on common ancestor populations, which does not account for the spiritual principle in the human species. Nor does it allow the fundamental doctrines of Original Sin.

Human origin and the material emergence of human nature is considered a separate discipline based on the evolution model. What the Catholic Church recognizes as possible is the evolutionary science regarding plants and ants and not human evolutionary science. Consequently, it can be misleading to say that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of evolutionary science.

When one pays attention to the fine print, it is evident that both Pope Pius XII and St. John Paul II never endorsed a blanket, material only, evolution model for humans. The simple word “if” is very significant for Catholic doctrine. Please refer to post 43.

Personally, I find it difficult to consider ancient humans living 75 years or 750 years without knowing the true nature of these beings and their true origin. It is the possible intervention of their Creator which could account for the initial survival of their species. After all, humans are the only extant hominins. There could be something different about their genome before natural mutations did their thing.

Or maybe figurative language was necessary to emphasis their role in the preparation for the Messiah. Since the age of these people is not in a Catholic doctrine, I should probably flip a coin.

 

[M-Dent]

The reality that the Masoretic (Hebrew), the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts do not agree on ages of the patriarchs may be a strong indication the unusual life spans are not the details that matter most. They may have a symbolic nature. They do seem drawn from the literary devices of the time.

The excellent Navarre Bible Commentary notes on Genesis,

In order to make revelations about himself, God led the chosen people to reflect profoundly on the origin of man and the world. Many of Israel’s neighbors had done the same, and, to explain things which were beyond the scope of ordinary language, they devised all sorts of myths about the origins of the world and man and about the earliest times of man. The sacred writers of Genesis sifted through these myths and selected certain literary elements suited to the mentality of their contemporaries in order to convey the message of faith that they wanted to pass on, through their writings, to the people of Israel and, through Israel’s religious experience, to all mankind.

Great age of the Pre-Flood Patriarchs: What are we to make of the accounts of the ages of Pre-Flood Patriarchs? Other ancient Near Eastern civilizations also had traditions of ancestors who lived to great ages prior to an event that their histories recorded as the Great Deluge:

•Based on the tablets of the ancient archives of the great Temple of Marduk, Babylonian historian Berossus (c. 300 BC) copied an ancient king list that named ten long-lived kings who reigned before the Great Flood. According to the ancient list, these kings reigned from ten to sixth thousand years. On his copy of the list, Berosus noted: In the time of Xisuthros the Great Deluge occurred.

•The Weld Prism (c. 2170 BC), discovered at Larsa, an ancient city a few miles north of Ur in Mesopotamia, recorded a list of kings from the beginning of humanity to the generation of the scribe Nur-Ninsubur, who recorded the data. His list included ten long-lived kings who lived prior to the Great Flood. This tablet was inscribed at least a hundred years before the birth of Abraham.

• Other tablets which listed long-lived Pre-Flood kings were discovered among the 50,000 tablets dating to the 3rd millennium BC that were discovered in several archives of Nippur, an ancient city about 50 miles southeast of Babylon. The Nippur Tablets listed Pre-Flood kings who had extremely long reigns.

•In addition to the Sumerian and Babylonians, the Egyptians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Hindu civilization of India, and other cultures also had traditions of great longevity for the earth’s earliest inhabitants.

agapebiblestudy.com/genesis/Lesson_5.htm

 

[clem456]

I do not intend to be rude. But it is time that Catholics update themselves as to what is happening in the natural science realm of human origin and human nature. The era of the Piltdown Man ended years ago. We now have the “demonstrated process” of the Cladistics system, based on common ancestor populations, which does not account for the spiritual principle in the human species. Nor does it allow the fundamental doctrines of Original Sin.

Human origin and the material emergence of human nature is considered a separate discipline based on the evolution model. What the Catholic Church recognizes as possible is the evolutionary science regarding plants and ants and not human evolutionary science. (This is not so AFAIK. The Church does not take such a stance in regard to the evolution of human ancestors materially). If there is a statement from the Church saying evolution cannot apply to our material development, please link)Consequently, it can be misleading to say that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of evolutionary science.

When one pays attention to the fine print, it is evident that both Pope Pius XII and St. John Paul II never endorsed a blanket, material only, evolution model for humans. The simple word “if” is very significant for Catholic doctrine. Please refer to post 43.

Personally, I find it difficult to consider ancient humans living 75 years or 750 years without knowing the true nature of these beings and their true origin. It is the possible intervention of their Creator which could account for the initial survival of their species. After all, humans are the only extant hominins. There could be something different about their genome before natural mutations did their thing.

Or maybe figurative language was necessary to emphasis their role in the preparation for the Messiah. Since the age of these people is not in a Catholic doctrine, I should probably flip a coin.

We are talking past each other somewhat.
I posted the same link you did to JP2’s address.

**It is by virtue of his spiritual soul **that the **whole person **possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, **are incompatible **with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

1. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge **makes it possible to reconcile **two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.

 

[grannymh]

The reality that the Masoretic (Hebrew), the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts do not agree on ages of the patriarchs may be a strong indication the unusual life spans are not the details that matter most. They may have a symbolic nature. They do seem drawn from the literary devices of the time.

The excellent Navarre Bible Commentary notes on Genesis,

In order to make revelations about himself, God led the chosen people to reflect profoundly on the origin of man and the world. Many of Israel’s neighbors had done the same, and, to explain things which were beyond the scope of ordinary language, they devised all sorts of myths about the origins of the world and man and about the earliest times of man. The sacred writers of Genesis sifted through these myths and selected certain literary elements suited to the mentality of their contemporaries in order to convey the message of faith that they wanted to pass on, through their writings, to the people of Israel and, through Israel’s religious experience, to all mankind.

Great age of the Pre-Flood Patriarchs: What are we to make of the accounts of the ages of Pre-Flood Patriarchs? Other ancient Near Eastern civilizations also had traditions of ancestors who lived to great ages prior to an event that their histories recorded as the Great Deluge:

•Based on the tablets of the ancient archives of the great Temple of Marduk, Babylonian historian Berossus (c. 300 BC) copied an ancient king list that named ten long-lived kings who reigned before the Great Flood. According to the ancient list, these kings reigned from ten to sixth thousand years. On his copy of the list, Berosus noted: In the time of Xisuthros the Great Deluge occurred.

•The Weld Prism (c. 2170 BC), discovered at Larsa, an ancient city a few miles north of Ur in Mesopotamia, recorded a list of kings from the beginning of humanity to the generation of the scribe Nur-Ninsubur, who recorded the data. His list included ten long-lived kings who lived prior to the Great Flood. This tablet was inscribed at least a hundred years before the birth of Abraham.

• Other tablets which listed long-lived Pre-Flood kings were discovered among the 50,000 tablets dating to the 3rd millennium BC that were discovered in several archives of Nippur, an ancient city about 50 miles southeast of Babylon. The Nippur Tablets listed Pre-Flood kings who had extremely long reigns.

•In addition to the Sumerian and Babylonians, the Egyptians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Hindu civilization of India, and other cultures also had traditions of great longevity for the earth’s earliest inhabitants.

agapebiblestudy.com/genesis/Lesson_5.htm

Thank you.

The first sentence says volumes.
“In order to make revelations about Himself, God led the chosen people to reflect profoundly on the origin of man and the world.”

Because, as a child, I learned Original Sin doctrines without a true study of the first three chapters of Genesis, I find these chapters extremely profound. Yet, I acknowledge that I have barely dented the surface.

 

[Zipply]

Clem456 wrote:

1. God breathed life into two original parents whom we call Adam and Eve. At God’s pleasure, in his own time, he created humanity. We believe he created humanity out of nothing, cause, well, God created everything from nothing.

I suppose you are referring to ensoulment, but perhaps you are also referring to the physical bodies of Adam and Eve. When you (or SS. JPII) write this obliquely, it’s difficult to know.

1. Evolution is a well demonstrated process occurring throughout nature. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of evolutionary science. If God chose to allow billions of year of natural development before breathing life into our first parents, isn’t that his business??? Isn’t God outside of time? Isn’t a billion years as nothing to him?

This says nothing and means nothing. It’s an appeal concerning something that no one is disputing.

These two are not incompatible at all. Faith and science cannot contradict each other.

Saying that is not the same as making it true, nor is it the same as showing how they are properly reconciled. People all over the place here seem to be confused about this. Saying two things do not contradict, in a discussion about their possible contradiction, does not resolve the problem. You might as well type ‘abracadabra’,

Do posters here really believe the science of evolution restricts God’s power to create two first parents? Really?

Non sequitur. No one is saying that.

God, who is omnipotent, cannot use the natural processes he created to form humanity in the way he wishes?

More hand waving. We’re talking about what God actually did. No one is restricting what He can do.

That is some weak conception of God, and it is ironic that you become the decision maker in this mysterious process rather than God. You doubt reason-able science, yet make your own reason the arbiter of these things.

Who is this intended for? It doesn’t seem to make sense, no matter which poster it is aimed at.

Don’t forget, symbolism and allegory can present just as powerful truth as facts. If you don’t believe that, you should be ripping pages from your New Testament and burning them, because Jesus uses non-factual events all-the-time… to drive home truths that you might ignore at your own peril.

Again, who is denying the symbolism of the OT? No one here. If they were, they’d be disputing the* holiness *of the persons credited with extreme old age in Genesis. But, no one is doing that. Who are you talking to?

Back to the thread, there is no reason to believe that ancient peoples lived literally hundreds of years. Catholics are not required to believe that in a literal sense, and science has absolutely no proof whatsoever that extended age was a factual reality. Nonetheless, the bible indicates long life is a sign of wisdom, blessing, durability in virtue, etc…

You look for proof they lived hundreds of years, I’ll take some wisdom and virtue, thank you very much…I need those qualities. Living to 200 years, not so much.

Well, that was a lot of nothing.

To address your first point:

Evolution is a knowable thing. We know how it works. We know that it operates on viable breeding populations. It does not magically produce two and only two members of a species on a given day. The only question is: Does the Church require Catholics to believe that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the living?

If yes (which yes, of course that’s the case) then all this talk of human evolution is just window-dressing, because we are bound to believe in a human origin which has literally nothing to do with evolution.

As long as you (Like Ss. JPII and ex-Pope Benedict) talk in riddles and poetry about human evolution, you can maintain some sort of fiction about everything being hunky-dory and compatible. BTW, I love Ss. JPII and ex-Pope Benedict. This was a soft spot in both of their theologies, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s nothing as compared to the faith.

 

[Aloysium]

The age business does matter to me. It conveys a truth. And the truth it conveys is not that people lived for literally hundreds of years. The actual ages listed are symbolic, as Father said. A larger truth is at work.
Good science does not make unsupported made-up assumptions, which is what it seems you are implying. Science does not assume there is no God. . . .

I don’t deny what Fr said. He can, better than I, talk about matters of the spirit.

If it is a matter of authority. I do have Dr in front of my name reflecting 10 years of fulltime university spent in the sciences, in addition to others in the arts. But I know science as a social system having everything to do with politics, economics, and honour. Other than that, it is an operating manual to me. The world reveals itself through one’s relationship with it; the methods one uses determine the “reality”. The ultimate connection with the truth is through love.

The fact is that science** cannot** include God in its assumptions.
Its assumptions however do include:

• the universe is rational
• we can know something of its structure through the senses and our intellect
• more particularly, that people’s lives had a certain duration at any point in time, is an assumption based on how long our lives are currently, especially in light of contact with stone age cultures, and also what we know of the animal kingdom.
• miracles, things that happen once (like the creation of man) are irrelevant. Science is only interested in the regularities of the universe. The beginning of the universe is important because in it we see all the laws that govern the workings of matter begin in that instant.
• uncertainty is a central concept in science; if disregarded, all scientific knowledge becomes ignorance

These assumptions are the same as those we made 20,000 years ago. Perhaps then, we may have been more connected to the mysteries of creation.

 

[grannymh]

We are talking past each other somewhat.
I posted the same link you did to JP2’s address.

In response to your post 51.

My apology. But I am not familiar with AFAIK in the blue part which was inserted.
(This is not so AFAIK. The Church does not take such a stance in regard to the evolution of human ancestors materially). If there is a statement from the Church saying evolution cannot apply to our material development, please link)

The statement you requested is sections 35, 36, 37 of Humani Generis
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Pius XII uses the word polygenism which does refer to a population as opposed to monogenism. And you are correct in using the plural “evolution of human ancestors materially” because that is “the common ancestor population” conclusion which directly challenges the existence of Adam and Eve

In your St. John Paul II quote, you put **If the human body take its origin from pre-existing matter, in bold. **That important qualification of pre-existing matter and section 6 does not affirm the human descent as a large breeding population.

The two points which are possible to reconcile are ontological discontinuity and physical continuity. It is the multiple manifestations of life that is referenced; yet the moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be observed but can be discovered at the experimental level because of the valuable signs of the fully-complete human nature.

None of the above affirms the standard, acceptable scientific teaching of humankind originating as a breeding population descended from a previous common ancestor population…

When one shifts the subject to our material development, there is the recognition that genetic adaptation does occur. For example, the anatomy studies of people living in extremely high altitudes.

Obviously, Adam has a material anatomy. And being a vertebrate, Adam has similar genes with a huge variety of animals. But Adam is a singular first individual which was a necessary requirement for the real Original Sin. (Humani Generis, sections 35,36, 37)

Pre-existing matter may have been used to form Adam, but that pre-existing matter is not a large breeding population which is the heart of the current evolution model.

 

[Zipply]

grannymh wrote:

Pius XII uses the word polygenism which does refer to a population as opposed to monogenism. And you are correct in using the plural “evolution of human ancestors materially” because that is “the common ancestor population” conclusion which directly challenges the existence of Adam and Eve

Correct.

In your St. John Paul II quote, you put If the human body take its origin from pre-existing matter, in bold. That important qualification of pre-existing matter and section 6 does not affirm the human descent as a large breeding population.

It appears to affirm it. That’s my point in all this - it’s a sleight of hand.

The two points which are possible to reconcile are ontological discontinuity and physical continuity. It is the multiple manifestations of life that is referenced; yet the moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be observed but can be discovered at the experimental level because of the valuable signs of the fully-complete human nature.

…unless you are required to believe in two unique parents, which you are. Then the reconciliation is not possible anymore. That is, of course, why PP. Pius XII said he didn’t see how it could be reconciled.

None of the above affirms the standard, acceptable scientific teaching of humankind originating as a breeding population descended from a previous common ancestor population…

True, and my point is that in fact the Church cannot affirm that and current teaching is not compatible with it, so I wish people would quit acting like there were no contradictions here.

When one shifts the subject to our material development, there is the recognition that genetic adaptation does occur. For example, the anatomy studies of people living in extremely high altitudes.

There is also recognition that rain falls and dogs bark.

Obviously, Adam has a material anatomy. And being a vertebrate, Adam has similar genes with a huge variety of animals. But Adam is a singular first individual which was a necessary requirement for the real Original Sin. (Humani Generis, sections 35,36, 37)

Most notably, Adam had similar genes to you and me and everyone else of the same species. That point seems to be continually lost.

Pre-existing matter may have been used to form Adam, but that pre-existing matter is not a large breeding population which is the heart of the current evolution model.

Bingo. You have it. That is why ‘pre-existing matter’ was such a weasel phrase to begin with.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Church has been down a similar path before.

At one time people claimed that the sun must revolve around the earth because man is at the center of creation; any scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun must necessarily be untrue because such a thing would contradict the theological understanding that the Son assumed human nature.

Once it became absolutely indisputable that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun, and that there is no point in trying to claim otherwise, the Church accepted the findings of science. Too late. It is apparent that some have yet not learned that hard lesson.

Now, several centuries later, we have the same faulty logic being applied: evolution (meaning, “scientific discoveries about evolution”) cannot be true because if evolution is true, then the dogma of Original Sin falls apart. I would like to write “needless to say, this type of reasoning is fallacious” but alas, I cannot write that because there is indeed a need to say it (posts on this and similar threads illustrate that need). The fact that it needs to be said is most unfortunate.

The point is that we cannot argue for-or-against theories of evolution based on theological truths, no matter how important/essential those truths might be. Evolution (in the broadest sense of the word) is a fact. It can no more be disputed than the fact that the earth goes 'round the sun can be disputed. It remains for scientists to discover how evolution happens (and has happened). Evolution is not a theological discipline.

No matter what science might discover (or hypothesize) about the origins of man, nothing will change the fact that we are born with Original Sin and we need the redemptive acts of Christ for our salvation. For that reason, we need not fear the findings of science. No scientific discovery will, nor can, change the truths of the Christian faith. Some people have yet to learn that; and as a result they try to dispute the findings of science with theological arguments. Some people just refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past.

 

[Zipply]

Sounds like NOMA.

 

[clem456]

…
Pre-existing matter may have been used to form Adam, but that pre-existing matter is not a large breeding population which is the heart of the current evolution model.

The Church does not embrace or refute the possibility of a large pre-human breeding population. Humani Generis does not refute the possibility, it reinforces that only two **truly **human parents are possible, not numerous.

It’s key to remember that a human person is body and soul. No body (stuff created by God), no human. No soul (created by God also), no human.

If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Before God created humanity, body and soul, humanity did not exist.

JP2 is not saying one thing or the other about the material God utilizes to create humanity. He is reinforcing that God alone creates human beings in our fullness, body and soul. What JP2 refutes is the idea of the soul somehow “emerging from the forces of living matter”, from material development, thereby removing God’s hand from the creation of the human soul in specifically two persons. Whether Adam and Eve were made from mud or from a stock of pre-humans is not specified by the Church.
When Pius speaks of polygenism he says this:

…
Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth **true men **who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

True man has a soul.
There cannot be more than two parents from whom all of mankind is generated.
This statement does not endorse or eliminate any particular theory of evolution. It merely points our that there are two, exactly two, human beings created by God with body and soul.
Any “breeding stock” that existed does not have a soul and cannot be fully human.
JP2 discusses the difficulty in what it means for a human to be here:

1. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.

 

[buffalo]

The Church has been down a similar path before.

At one time people claimed that the sun must revolve around the earth because man is at the center of creation; any scientific evidence that the earth revolves around the sun must necessarily be untrue because such a thing would contradict the theological understanding that the Son assumed human nature.

Once it became absolutely indisputable that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun, and that there is no point in trying to claim otherwise, the Church accepted the findings of science. Too late. It is apparent that some have yet not learned that hard lesson.

Now, several centuries later, we have the same faulty logic being applied: evolution (meaning, “scientific discoveries about evolution”) cannot be true because if evolution is true, then the dogma of Original Sin falls apart. I would like to write “needless to say, this type of reasoning is fallacious” but alas, I cannot write that because there is indeed a need to say it (posts on this and similar threads illustrate that need). The fact that it needs to be said is most unfortunate.

The point is that we cannot argue for-or-against theories of evolution based on theological truths, no matter how important/essential those truths might be. Evolution (in the broadest sense of the word) is a fact. It can no more be disputed than the fact that the earth goes 'round the sun can be disputed. It remains for scientists to discover how evolution happens (and has happened). Evolution is not a theological discipline.

No matter what science might discover (or hypothesize) about the origins of man, nothing will change the fact that we are born with Original Sin and we need the redemptive acts of Christ for our salvation. For that reason, we need not fear the findings of science. No scientific discovery will, nor can, change the truths of the Christian faith. Some people have yet to learn that; and as a result they try to dispute the findings of science with theological arguments. Some people just refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Actually, there are two positions. The math works both ways.

1. Geocentrism
   2 Acentrism

 

[buffalo]

1. God breathed life into two original parents whom we call Adam and Eve. At God’s pleasure, in his own time, he created humanity. We believe he created humanity out of nothing, cause, well, God created everything from nothing.
2. Evolution is a well demonstrated process occurring throughout nature. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of evolutionary science. If God chose to allow billions of year of natural development before breathing life into our first parents, isn’t that his business??? Isn’t God outside of time? Isn’t a billion years as nothing to him?

These two are not incompatible at all. Faith and science cannot contradict each other.

Do posters here really believe the science of evolution restricts God’s power to create two first parents? Really?
God, who is omnipotent, cannot use the natural processes he created to form humanity in the way he wishes?
That is some weak conception of God, and it is ironic that you become the decision maker in this mysterious process rather than God. You doubt reason-able science, yet make your own reason the arbiter of these things.

Don’t forget, symbolism and allegory can present just as powerful truth as facts. If you don’t believe that, you should be ripping pages from your New Testament and burning them, because Jesus uses non-factual events all-the-time… to drive home truths that you might ignore at your own peril.

Back to the thread, there is no reason to believe that ancient peoples lived literally hundreds of years. Catholics are not required to believe that in a literal sense, and science has absolutely no proof whatsoever that extended age was a factual reality. Nonetheless, the bible indicates long life is a sign of wisdom, blessing, durability in virtue, etc…

You look for proof they lived hundreds of years, I’ll take some wisdom and virtue, thank you very much…I need those qualities. Living to 200 years, not so much.

Actually, there is a problem. The evo claim is it is a blind unguided process.

So,

Did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?