Did people really live hundreds of years?

[buffalo]

Interview WIth Lynn Margulis - natural selection

Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one.

       [Interview WIth Lynn Margulis](http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg68)

And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?
This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
and…
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific.
The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web…

 

[grannymh]

I did not use the word “chimpanzees.”
That’s your word, not mine.

I used the word “primates.”
You changed it to “chimpanzees” in a vain attempt to prove it wrong.

May I respectfully point out that the word chimpanzees was **not **used by either you or me.The word chimpanzees actually appears in a link in post 115.

On the other hand, I did refer to the Homo/Pan Split so you are right in that I did refer to chimpanzees. Homo/Pan is a textbook term. However, I did not repeat the quote box with any kind of substitution.

Textbook fallacy.

No offense taken.

You did not “respectfully point out” anything. You changed what I wrote to make what I wrote appear outdated. It doesn’t even rise to the level of “nice try.”

No offense taken.

My comment was – “May I respectfully point out that number 2. is not exactly current.” A link follows with current information. Of course, you may dispute what is said in the link. Scientists often engage in world wide battles.

Your posts are still nothing more than classic, textbook fallacies. A Philosophy 101 professor could use your posts to teach a class.

No offense taken.

That reminds me. As I recall, my logic professor opened his course with “All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.” Truthfully, I do not remember what else was said; however, I did pass the course. Thus, it is perfectly understandable that my posts could be filled with all kinds of classic textbook fallacies.

 

[Zipply]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrDavid96:
t
It took a while, but we:

1. Realized that we can no longer deny that the earth revolves around the sun
2. Realized that we can no longer deny that human beings descended from primates

We now accept both of these and we are still Christians. Let’s not make the same mistake we made with Galileo.

Originally posted by Grannymh:
My comment is intended to be totally charitable especially since many Catholics are not up to speed with current science.

May I respectfully point out that number 2. is not exactly current.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07
Misconceptions about humans

1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

Please note that the diagram (cladistics system) in this link omits the hominin lineage and goes directly to the final extant beings, humans.

Granny, you simply did not understand, and made a silly, wrongheaded post. FrDavid said “human beings descended from primates” which is certainly true. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos and gorillas was certainly a primate.

You posted “May I respectfully point out that number 2. is not exactly current.”

However, it is entirely current.

So, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Faced with this, you posted “A link follows with current information. Of course, you may dispute what is said in the link. Scientists often engage in world wide battles.” indicating that you still don’t understand what is being discussed.

You know, things like this make one wonder why you would consider yourself in any way qualified to curate threads on ‘Adam and logic’.

 

[grannymh]

Humans *are *primates.

Even those who lived for hundreds of years.

Humans are also vertebrates.

With all that, it is truly amazing that the human species is peerless.

 

[clem456]

My comment is intended to be totally charitable especially since many Catholics are not up to speed with current science.

May I respectfully point out that number 2. is not exactly current.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07
Misconceptions about humans

1. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

Please note that the diagram (cladistics system) in this link omits the hominin lineage and goes directly to the final extant beings, humans.

From the Catholic Church position:

The direct challenge to the authentic doctrine of monogenism is that each point on the cladistics diagram represents a population including the final material/physical product --humans (plural intended) population. The underlying principle is that there has never been a population of two since the common ancestor population referred to as Homo/Pan Split – No Adam and Eve.

From my limited experience as an editor/researcher, it appears that the word population has replaced the term polygenism. Nonetheless, both mean many founders of humankind.

From the genetic viewpoint, the necessity of a large population further denies the existence of Adam and Eve. Without the existence of one original Adam in whom is all humanity “as one body of one man”, there is no one Original Sin. The Catholic Church knows that we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

Information source: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1; CCC 404; CCC 389.

Link to updated Catholic position.

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

You would have a difficult time finding a reputable scientist that does not believe human beings developed from primate ancestors.
You seem to be intent of proving humans are not descended from chimps. So? No one claimed such. If you look at the phylogeny at the bottom of your own link it classifies humans as having a common descent with other primates, including chimps, but not descended FROM chimps.

 

[FrDavid96]

Humans *are *primates.

Other primates.

Happy now?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, you simply did not understand, and made a silly, wrongheaded post. FrDavid said “human beings descended from primates” which is certainly true. The common ancestor of humans, chimps, and bonobos and gorillas was certainly a primate.

You posted “May I respectfully point out that number 2. is not exactly current.”

However, it is entirely current.

No offense taken.

I do not intend to debate the difference between not exactly and entirely.

How about this approach?

What needs to be added to number 2, as a valuable clarification, is the fact that each point on a cladistics diagram is a significantly large population, including the humans population’s founders. This means that the hominin lineage does not result in a population of two. By the way, the “world wide” battle over hominid and hominin has been settled…for now.

In my humble opinion, theology is faced with a population of thousands verses a population of two. In post 115, there is a skeleton presentation of the Catholic Church position and its opposition.

 

[grannymh]

You would have a difficult time finding a reputable scientist that does not believe human beings developed from primate ancestors.
You seem to be intent of proving humans are not descended from chimps. So? No one claimed such. If you look at the phylogeny at the bottom of your own link it classifies humans as having a common descent with other primates, including chimps, but not descended FROM chimps.

No offense taken

I am more concerned about defending the Catholic Truth regarding Adam. To do this properly, we need to be aware of the natural science position.

**From the Catholic Church position: **

The direct challenge to the authentic doctrine of monogenism is that each point on the cladistics diagram represents a population including the final material/physical product --humans (plural intended) population. The underlying principle is that there has never been a population of two since the common ancestor population referred to as Homo/Pan Split – No Adam and Eve.

From my limited experience as an editor/researcher, it appears that the word population has replaced the term polygenism. Nonetheless, both mean many founders of humankind.

From the genetic viewpoint, the necessity of a large population further denies the existence of Adam and Eve. Without the existence of one original Adam in whom is all humanity “as one body of one man”, there is no one Original Sin. The Catholic Church knows that we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

Information source: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1; CCC 404; CCC 389.

Link to updated Catholic position.

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-t…genesis-story/

 

[clem456]

No offense taken

I am more concerned about defending the Catholic Truth regarding Adam. To do this properly, we need to be aware of the natural science position.

From the Catholic Church position:

The direct challenge to the authentic doctrine of monogenism is that each point on the cladistics diagram represents a population including the final material/physical product --humans (plural intended) population. The underlying principle is that there has never been a population of two since the common ancestor population referred to as Homo/Pan Split – No Adam and Eve.

From my limited experience as an editor/researcher, it appears that the word population has replaced the term polygenism. Nonetheless, both mean many founders of humankind.

From the genetic viewpoint, the necessity of a large population further denies the existence of Adam and Eve. Without the existence of one original Adam in whom is all humanity “as one body of one man”, there is no one Original Sin. The Catholic Church knows that we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

Information source: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1; CCC 404; CCC 389.

Link to updated Catholic position.

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-t…genesis-story/

“True man”.
These discussions go round in circles. No one has a definitive explanation for the material side of things. Science is working on it. All the info you are providing talks about how man gets his “stuff”, his material side.
“True man” is not just a body. God gives man a soul also. Other primates don’t have souls. Doesn’t matter what tree they are on (no pun intended) they don’t have souls. Adam and Eve have souls.
One poster figures this is a miracle.
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!
A miracle? God working a miracle? Go figure.

Truly, why does it bother people to even consider that Adam and Eve are descended from a pool of similar primates. What is sooo threatening about that?
The Catholic Church clearly, does not, does not, reject this line of scientific inquiry. It does not.
JP2’s words are concerned with the dignity of man. Pius’ words are concerned that we don’t give God’s creative power in the matter of ensoulment to material process, and that we don’t claim more than two common parents.

Human beings have a body, and they have a soul.
Is that up for dispute?

 

[grannymh]

“True man”.
These discussions go round in circles. No one has a definitive explanation for the material side of things. Science is working on it. All the info you are providing talks about how man gets his “stuff”, his material side.

That is correct. I am presenting the material/physical side which is in the realm of natural science.

“True man” is not just a body. God gives man a soul also. Other primates don’t have souls. Doesn’t matter what tree they are on (no pun intended) they don’t have souls. Adam and Eve have souls.
One poster figures this is a miracle.
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME!
A miracle? God working a miracle? Go figure.

Because I am presenting material/physical information about the natural science approach to our species – that does **not **automatically imply that I am denying each human’s rational spiritual soul.

Truly, why does it bother people to even consider that Adam and Eve are descended from a pool of similar primates. What is sooo threatening about that?

It is only threatening to those who accept the Catholic doctrine of two, sole, real, fully-complete human founders of the human species. This is because the underlying principle of the pool of similar primates is that this primate pool spawned a human population of thousands and **not a human population of two people, Adam and Eve. **

The Catholic Church clearly, does not, does not, reject this line of scientific inquiry. It does not.

What the Catholic Church rejects is the natural science population theory aka polygenism. (Source of information. Footnotes 11 and 12, sections 35, 36, 37 of Humani Generis)

JP2’s words are concerned with the dignity of man. Pius’ words are concerned that we don’t give God’s creative power in the matter of ensoulment to material process, and that we don’t claim more than two common parents.

The current science theory, based on cladistics, does claim a “pool” of multiple breeding “human parents.”

Human beings have a body, and they have a soul.
Is that up for dispute?

Please review section 5 in this link. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

St. John Paul II said a lot more than his concern about the dignity of man.

 

[Zipply]

So, it seems this discussion of Adam which grew out of a discussion of long lives in scripture is closing. I’m glad it was allowed to continue, as I now understand this message board has a huge problem with evolution threads.

I’m struck by the perspicacity of this quote from a minor Australian atheist, Russel Blackford:

Historically, religions have been encyclopedic systems of belief, offering explanations of a vast range of phenomena … as well as providing guidance for their adherents’ actions. As encyclopedic systems, they inevitably come into conflict with science as the latter provides more and more facts about how the world actually works. Religion can avoid direct conflicts only by retreating into highly abstract and more-or-less unfalsifiable positions. Some modern-day versions of religion may well have retreated so far from falsifiability that they are no longer in direct conflict with science, but that’s a fascinating historical development, not an indication that religion and science exercise inherently different and non-overlapping magisteria.

I think the position we have outlined here (that Adam and Eve’s physcial bodies were born from non-human primates in a sizable breeding population, were ensouled, fell, produced offspring which interbred with non-human (unensouled) primates and eventually took over the gene pool) is indeed un-falsifiable.

It deals only with aspects of human origins that can never be known or verified. While I think this is a testament to Catholic bra(name removed by moderator)ower, it’s also in every sense the kind of retreat described above.

It seems that a Catholic is obliged to hold this, or a similar idea, or accept the possibility of one of these ‘Plan C’ notions in order to be orthodox and in union with the recent Popes.

What seems inescapable, however, is that of all pf the elements of the Fall narrative, the singularity of Adam is the only one ever singled out in the modern Church as non-negotiable. Every single other aspect (garden, snake, apple, tree, angel with flaming sword) is treated (for very good reasons) as allegory. Taking one solitary aspect of this allegory and insisting on it (for congruence with NT teaching, of course) is bound to cause difficulties - and it does.

 

[grannymh]

So, it seems this discussion of Adam which grew out of a discussion of long lives in scripture is closing. I’m glad it was allowed to continue, as I now understand this message board has a huge problem with evolution threads.

Good morning, Zipply,

This is for you. :flowers:
Thank you for post 118.

This morning :newidea:

I started thinking about the diagram in post 118. By the way, in England two years ago, a Museum of Natural History display was referring to discussions about Australopithecus (see chart) and friends. And the current background chatter regarding last year’s major fossil find has some experts wondering if and how that diagram may or may not be altered. Final morning note. According to a course on line, brow-ridges (Homo sapiens) are a really big deal in species classifications; however, brow ridges yield to genetics in this century. Paleoanthropology is not set in stone.

My point is!!!

Looking at that diagram, I have the seed of an idea that may help us answer the title of this thread.

***** Did people really live hundreds of years?*****

Please take a look at the top of the chart which illustrates the years related to these fascinating fossils which lived and walked on ancient earth. Then consider that the author who put together the record of Adam’s descendants did not have the technology going millions of years backwards.

Since the Genesis author was not a published Ph.D. scientist, we need to determine both his tools and his evidence. Today, this is known as the methods and materials sections in published research papers.

I’m struck by the perspicacity of this quote from a minor Australian atheist, Russel Blackford:

And the Australian Black Swan became a major part of scientific theories, that is, the puzzle of probability and possibility.

What seems inescapable, however, is that of all pf the elements of the Fall narrative, the singularity of Adam is the only one ever singled out in the modern Church as non-negotiable. Every single other aspect (garden, snake, apple, tree, angel with flaming sword) is treated (for very good reasons) as allegory. Taking one solitary aspect of this allegory and insisting on it (for congruence with NT teaching, of course) is bound to cause difficulties - and it does.

I cannot speak for the modern Church which is referred above. However, the Catholic Church has a variety of non-negotiable doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. For example. In the list above, the “apple per se” would be negotiable, but the meaning of the apple is non-negotiable.

My apology. I know there are questions about my idea that I need to deal with. However, I am traveling and need to get my — in gear. I do hope that logical thinkers and plain old analytical thinkers will consider that maybe this older than dirt, cranky granny might have a different approach to the thread’s question.
Did people really live hundreds of years?

By the way, I have been shot down many times. Yet, my imagination keeps rising like a phoenix.

 

[clem456]

Please review section 5 in this link. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

St. John Paul II said a lot more than his concern about the dignity of man.

This paragraph 5 is what I’ve bee referencing.
It specifically supports what I am trying to get across: It’s all about the dignity of man.

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). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is “the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person.

Pointing directly at the dignity of the human person, as I said in prior post.^^^

With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body.

He goes through some essential attributes that compose a person.
A whole person is a body, created by God ways we do not fully fathom yet, and a soul, created by God according to revelation.

This line is really key and bears repeating:

It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body.

Pius XII (uniting past with present) 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.

What he specifically rejects is

theories of evolution which…consider **the spirit **as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter

JP2 is sometimes difficult to comprehend but this statement is very clear in what it says, and in what it does not say. In no way shape or form does he reject any theory of evolution -as it involves the material world-. He is rejecting theories which overstep their bounds and enter into the spiritual realm.

I seems to me, as I said in the other post, JP2’s primary concern is that theories of evolution do not trample on the God-given dignity of the whole human person. He is not making scientific pronouncements here.

 

[grannymh]

JP2 is sometimes difficult to comprehend but this statement is very clear in what it says, and in what it does not say. In no way shape or form does he reject any theory of evolution -as it involves the material world-. He is rejecting theories which overstep their bounds and enter into the spiritual realm.

I seems to me, as I said in the other post, JP2’s primary concern is that theories of evolution do not trample on the God-given dignity of the whole human person. He is not making scientific pronouncements here.

Please note: Simply because I understand some, not all, natural science – that does not automatically mean that I deny St. John Paul’s primary concern about man’s dignity. And yes, there seems to be “Catholic Church Speak”.

These are the words which specifically reject a particular proposed material/physical theory of evolution itself. As I have often indicated – it is time for all of us to update ourselves as to what is actually happening in natural science.
From section 5.
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.

We must consider the audience the Pope was addressing. Most, not all, of us do not recognize the meaning of the words “emerging from the forces of living matter.” The audience knew exactly which evolution theory the Pope was referring to.

I needed a dictionary for the word epiphenomenon. The audience did not need a dictionary.

Maybe some, not all, of us need a dictionary for the word incompatible as in “incompatible with the truth about man.” That is a complete rejection of the proposed material/physical scientific possibility of the evolutionary-based emergence and epiphenomenon description which removes the spiritual soul from the dignity of the person.

Hopefully, the audience did not put those particular evolution theories above Divine Revelation.

You may have the last word.

Currently, I am interested in post 133 which addresses
Did people really live thousands of years?

 

[clem456]

Just one last point from me. You are misunderstanding what JP2 is rejecting.

He is not rejecting any particular scientific theory -as it concerns the material world-.
His words are clear and concise.

…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.

He is concerned with erroneous claims made by science as to the origin of the soul. Epiphenomenon would be a soul that is an “afterthought”, or a soul that is accidental to, or a soul that is dependent on as a first cause…a material process, rather than a direct and intentional creation of God.

Theories which make an unscientific leap, and deny the creation of the spirit as well as the material, by God, are not “able to ground the dignity of the person.”

 

[grannymh]

Back in post 133, I made a rather outrageous statement that I have the seed of an idea that may help us answer the title of this thread.

Did people really live hundreds of years?

First presupposition.

We are seeking the possibility of long-lived early characters in Hebrew history and not necessarily the probability of hundreds of years.

The difference between possibility and probability is illustrated in this link, Black Swan Facts. svswans.com/black.html

The general consensus of scientists specializing in zoology was that the swan species was only white in color. The Australians probably were laughing. The “Black Swan theory” teaches us that there was the possibility that complete knowledge of the swan species was beyond the current evidence. Technically, authors do not have to declare that their conclusion is probable even though some do admit the experimental nature of their project. Obviously, in most science papers, the evidence warrants a definite conclusion. However, in a project going many years backwards, it is safer to consider a conclusion as probable which does not rule out a possibility that is outside the power of the current available evidence.

When the ages listed in the record of Adam’s descendants are first looked at, the reaction usually is that these ages are probably an exaggeration which is serving an useful purpose. The Genesis author was not a published Ph.D. scientist who could go backwards in time like the diagram in post 118. So, the real question is – What tools and evidence did that Genesis author have? Today, this question would be answered in the methods and materials sections in published research papers.

Thoughts? Comments? Better Ideas?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m reading Genesis and over and over people are living 600-900 years. We know scientifically (obviously) this is not possible. So is it true?

…

No.

 

[Nelka]

No.

It is true.

Do you think God is incapable of allowing humans to live for so long?

 

[redneck22]

When the ages listed in the record of Adam’s descendants are first looked at, the reaction usually is that these ages are probably an exaggeration which is serving an useful purpose. The Genesis author was not a published Ph.D. scientist who could go backwards in time like the diagram in post 118. So, the real question is – What tools and evidence did that Genesis author have? Today, this question would be answered in the methods and materials sections in published research papers.

Thoughts? Comments? Better Ideas?

Adam could have written the record of the early books of Genesis as he was an eye witness to most of the events. The creation events of the first six days could only have been revealed by God directly. Before Adam dies he physically gives the writings to Methuselah who then gives them to Noah. Noah then hands them to Abraham before Noah dies.

This would mean the record only changes hands 3 times to get to Abraham, he keeps them and passes them on to his descendants, the Hebrew nation.

 

[grannymh]

Adam could have written the record of the early books of Genesis as he was an eye witness to most of the events. The creation events of the first six days could only have been revealed by God directly. Before Adam dies he physically gives the writings to Methuselah who then gives them to Noah. Noah then hands them to Abraham before Noah dies.

This would mean the record only changes hands 3 times to get to Abraham, he keeps them and passes them on to his descendants, the Hebrew nation.

Thank you.

You have put into words what I have been thinking. The record of Adam’s descendants affirms that the truths of God’s plan for humans have been carefully preserved.