Did we evolve from apes?

[edwest2]

Yes it does.
However, the Church does not define things not revealed to it by the Holy Spirit. In other word, the Church doesn’t define whether or not intelligent life exists on other planets. It hasn’t been revealed by the Holy Spirit, no definition. It may comment on possibilities, but it isn’t a dogma. As such any comments are simply that, not doctrine or teaching. The Church has not defined our roots. The Church document named the Bible simply tells us God created everything including us. It does not go into detail as to how. Formed by God’s hands. What exactly does that mean? Does God have hands as we know them? Or are God’s hands anything He determines them to be? God is not restricted to our understanding of Him. By God’s hands I read He did it, what ever way He desired. Four finger one thumb hands? Possibly, not probable. Are His hands nature? I think so. Did He use nature, His hands, to created humans? Yes, that’s what Scripture leads me to believe. Is that against Catholic Church teaching? No.
Well here is where you’re running into problems. Homo sapien is a scientific term. It does not speak of the soul. It speaks only of physical attributes. Was the first homo sapien a human in God’s eye? We just don’t know. We do know the first human with an eternal soul was Adam. Was he the first homo sapien? Don’t know, possibly, maybe, probably. What does it matter? Humanity is more than bodies. When the eternal soul was infused is when the first man was created, not when the first anatomical human was born. It doesn’t really matter how God created him!

“It doesn’t really matter”? So these debates are about what? That man is just an animal? That the Bible has it wrong about Adam and Eve?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tom]

“It doesn’t really matter”? So these debates are about what? That man is just an animal? That the Bible has it wrong about Adam and Eve?
Peace,
Ed

The Bible does not have it wrong, nor is it in conflict with science. Read my post. The first human in God’s eye is the first human to be infused with a eternal soul. That is Adam.
What doesn’t matter is how God chose to create him. God used His “hands”, which means science, to create an animal and infused into this animal an eternal soul. Not to be confused with an immortal soul. Eternal means it will last forever, immortal means it will live with God forever.

 

[JJ59]

Yes it does.
However, the Church does not define things not revealed to it by the Holy Spirit. In other word, the Church doesn’t define whether or not intelligent life exists on other planets. It hasn’t been revealed by the Holy Spirit, no definition. It may comment on possibilities, but it isn’t a dogma. As such any comments are simply that, not doctrine or teaching. The Church has not defined our roots. The Church document named the Bible simply tells us God created everything including us. It does not go into detail as to how. Formed by God’s hands. What exactly does that mean? Does God have hands as we know them? Or are God’s hands anything He determines them to be? God is not restricted to our understanding of Him. By God’s hands I read He did it, what ever way He desired. Four finger one thumb hands? Possibly, not probable. Are His hands nature? I think so. Did He use nature, His hands, to created humans? Yes, that’s what Scripture leads me to believe. Is that against Catholic Church teaching? No.
Well here is where you’re running into problems. Homo sapien is a scientific term. It does not speak of the soul. It speaks only of physical attributes. Was the first homo sapien a human in God’s eye? We just don’t know. We do know the first human with an eternal soul was Adam. Was he the first homo sapien? Don’t know, possibly, maybe, probably. What does it matter? Humanity is more than bodies. When the eternal soul was infused is when the first man was created, not when the first anatomical human was born. It doesn’t really matter how God created him!

Good point, Tom.

So really, evolution doesn’t mean that humans couldn’t have evolved, right? It’s much more about the eternal soul.

God Bless.

 

[Tom]

Good point, Tom.
So really, evolution doesn’t mean that humans couldn’t have evolved, right? It’s much more about the eternal soul.
God Bless.

It’s all about the soul! That’s why I can’t understand this argument about creationism vs. evolution. It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

 

[Bear_Claw]

It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

27, of course! We have observed and recorded it with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope…I thought you knew? Just keeping it light

 

[edwest2]

The Bible does not have it wrong, nor is it in conflict with science. Read my post. The first human in God’s eye is the first human to be infused with a eternal soul. That is Adam.
What doesn’t matter is how God chose to create him. God used His “hands”, which means science, to create an animal and infused into this animal an eternal soul. Not to be confused with an immortal soul. Eternal means it will last forever, immortal means it will live with God forever.

The first human is the first human to be infused with a soul? Where are you getting that from? It certainly conflicts with Humani Generis which teaches that Adam did not come from a group of similar creatures.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

I’m not sure we’ll ever really know any of those answers, and the Church does not deny that perhaps a line was crossed at some point. But I don’t see that Divine intervention is precluded. I am aware of the primordial “Eve” that seems to be demonstrated by mitochondrial DNA, and that’s a very suggestive clue that there were, indeed, two fully human “parents” somewhere back down the line. That, of course, is totally consistent with the Genesis account, but neither way of seeing it gives all the details.

So, while the primordial “Eve” of the biologists is suggestive that Genesis is, fundamentally, a true account in some way, it still doesn’t really tell us everything we would like to know.

A little fly in your ointment, science has linked all humans to one “original” woman. Yes, you may call her Eve.

Wrong again. The Mitochondria proves we all came from the same woman. I fully expect that science will one day confirm we all came from the same man, as well.

To you all, the so-called mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with the biblical Eve. The erroneous claim that the existence of mitochondrial Eve (more properly called the Most Recent Common Ancestor in the strictly maternal line - and not the sole maternal ancestor in her generation of us all) is evidence for the existence of a biblical Eve (the sole female ancestor of all of us) is so widespread that it has almost become an urban myth - but it’s wrong.

See here and here for example.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_biblical_eve.htm

 

[JJ59]

The first human is the first human to be infused with a soul? Where are you getting that from? It certainly conflicts with Humani Generis which teaches that Adam did not come from a group of similar creatures.

Peace,
Ed

See, this is what I’m talking about.

What exactly does the Humani Generis say? (Is that a Church document?)

God Bless.

 

[rossum]

See, this is what I’m talking about.

What exactly does the Humani Generis say? (Is that a Church document?)

God Bless.

Humani Generis is certainly a Church document: from the Vatican Website

Paragrapf 36 mentions evolution:36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. 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.
This seems to me to allow that the human body (but not the human soul) may have evolved “from pre-existent and living matter”.

The next paragraph is the only one that mentions Adam:37. 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.
To me that says nothing about who or what Adam was descended from, merely that all humans are descended from Adam.

It seems to me that ed is setting narrower limits to Catholic belief than the limits the Church herself sets.

rossum

 

[Tom]

Hi Ed, Humani-generis does not teach that Adam could not have come from a group of similar creatures. It teaches that all generations came from him, not where he came from.

The first human is the first human to be infused with a soul? Where are you getting that from? It certainly conflicts with Humani Generis which teaches that Adam did not come from a group of similar creatures.
Peace,
Ed

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

http://www.vatican

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] 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.
2. 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]

Thanks Rossum, sorry, didn’t see your post! You said the same thing.

 

[Tom]

See, this is what I’m talking about.

What exactly does the Humani Generis say? (Is that a Church document?)

God Bless.

Hi JJ, that is one problem. I read something and get my opinion based on my experiences and point of view, you read the exact same thing and draw your opinions based on your experiences and point of view. Often they conflict, but the base document didn’t change. That’s why it is imperative to read the ENTIRE document yourself. It’s really easy to do. Go and type the name of the document in any search engine, it will take you to the vatican web site where you can read it! Then judge both differing opinions with your own. You might agree with either or you might have a separate opinion! That’s what learning about your faith should be like. Don’t just read an opinion from here and take it as “gospel” LOL

 

[cerad]

Interesting level of discourse you seem committed to. Is your aim to convince or merely to mock?

Mostly to mock. I really wish that you folks could understand what these threads look like to outsiders. I do have to admit that this thread does make an interesting observation. All theological problems are indeed equivalent to determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It certainly wasn’t that, as any plain reading of my text would reveal.

Hmmm. Your challenge was:

Provide a scientific, naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe.

Science assumes the universe exists. There is really no need to explain it’s existence.

Lots of folks are working on how the universe came about but that is a completely different issue. And of course this has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[VociMike]

Mostly to mock. I really wish that you folks could understand what these threads look like to outsiders. I do have to admit that this thread does make an interesting observation. All theological problems are indeed equivalent to determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Thank you for revealing your colors. I hope that whatever is compelling you to come here and make fun of others will somehow release you from its grip so that you can move on to more productive pursuits.

Science assumes the universe exists. There is really no need to explain it’s existence.

So, science does not account for the existence of the universe. We are agreed. But you reveal an appalling lack of human curiosity to then say there is really no need to explain its existence. Most of humanity down the ages would strongly disagree.

Lots of folks are working on how the universe came about but that is a completely different issue. And of course this has nothing to do with evolution.

But it does have to do with the false conflict that some on both sides assert between science and faith.

 

[Maranatha33]

Thank you for revealing your colors. I hope that whatever is compelling you to come here and make fun of others will somehow release you from its grip so that you can move on to more productive pursuits.

VociMike,
Did you miss the last creationists meeting. Most of the participants are still laughing at the “something from nothing” theory. It was, and still is, a real hoot. If they only realized how silly it looks!

So, science does not account for the existence of the universe

.

They don’t because they CANT. One of the main tenets of evolution is that if something can be disproved by science, ignore it. If they could prove it, it would be on every billboard sign in America. They are still busy trying to explain how the first cell came to be. That is why they start AFTER the creation of the first cell.

 

[Namesake]

VociMike,
Did you miss the last creationists meeting. Most of the participants are still laughing at the “something from nothing” theory. It was, and still is, a real hoot. If they only realized how silly it looks!

.

They don’t because they CANT. One of the main tenets of evolution is that if something can be disproved by science, ignore it. If they could prove it, it would be on every billboard sign in America. They are still busy trying to explain how the first cell came to be. That is why they start AFTER the creation of the first cell.

That isn’t true at all. Evolution theory doesn’t address the beginning of life, and I sincerely hope that you understand that. Speak truth, please!

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The first human is the first human to be infused with a soul? Where are you getting that from? It certainly conflicts with Humani Generis which teaches that Adam did not come from a group of similar creatures.

Then I wonder how Pius XII explained the existence of Homo Neanderthalensis.

 

[buffalo]

Then I wonder how Pius XII explained the existence of Homo Neanderthalensis.

They were human.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

They were human.

Homo Neanderthalensis is very similar to modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) but is a different species, evolved long before our species, could not reproduce with our species, and went extinct.

 

[buffalo]

Homo Neanderthalensis is very similar to modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) but is a different species, evolved long before our species, could not reproduce with our species, and went extinct.

They are a sub-species of human.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

They are a sub-species of human.

They were a separate but very similar species. Homo Neanderthalensis evolved before Homo Sapiens Sapiens so it cannot be a subspecies of Homo Sapiens Sapiens not to mention the fact that they were genetically incompatible for reproduction with our species.