Do you believe in Adam and Eve or Evolution?

[Jack_Bauer]

Well, I knew a guy that grew up with Moses. He said he was as old as dirt. So I assume that means he was here from the beginning… must have known Adam and Eve after the falling out.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

17-19 For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just."

The above is pretty clear, As is:
1 Corinthians 15:22 “And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”

1 Timothy 2:13 “For Adam was first formed; then Eve.”

CCC 375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Romans 5:12 "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

17-19 For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just."

The above is pretty clear, As is:
1 Corinthians 15:22 “And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”

1 Timothy 2:13 “For Adam was first formed; then Eve.”

CCC 375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

 

[supertubos]

The creation story may be regarded as allegorical. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, existed.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

54 . . . he [God] manifested himself to our first parents from the very beginning.

55 This revelation was not broken off by our first parents’ sin…

Sorry, Adam and Eve, as described by the Bible, did not exist.With evolution, it would be as ridiculous to say that as to say that the sun goes round the earth.

As for que quotations of the Cathecism it refers to the Original Sin, which is much debated now. I believeue in it but how was it…?

cheers,

 

[rbarcia]

If evolution is real, and Genesis 1-11 are just mythical truth, then how can I trust anything in the Bible.

If evolution is true, then DEATH came before SIN.

**
Romans 5

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

**

So if the curse did not happen, then what hope do I have from freedom of the curse. Gen discusses the tree of life, then how can we trust Rev’s mention of the tree of life

**
Rev 22

1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. 4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. 5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

**

At the end, rc has very little regard for the authority of the Word of God, they put their faith in the things of men, and take authority away so they can change with the prevailing thought of the day so they can continue to hold their seat.

Macro Evolution is a myth. No way did a man come from monkey like parents, and there is no science that has proved that. God created an aged earth.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, Adam and Eve, as described by the Bible, did not exist.With evolution, it would be as ridiculous to say that as to say that the sun goes round the earth.

As for que quotations of the Cathecism it refers to the Original Sin, which is much debated now. I believeue in it but how was it…?

cheers,

See this:

 

[beeliner]

1. Macro Evolution is a myth.
2. No way did a man come from monkey like parents, and there is no science that has proved that.
3. God created an aged earth.

1. “Macro evolution” is a catch-phrase of creationists.
2. Science assures us that this is true. The evidence for it overwhelming, the evidence against it non-existant.

The Catholic educational system is arguably the best in the world. Please name ONE Catholic university that teaches what you assert rather than orthodox science.

3… Since God transcends time, and since quantum physics assures us that time and space are the same thing, it’s a meaningless statement.

 

[exnihilo]

1. Science assures us that this is true. The evidence for it overwhelming, the evidence against it non-existant.

Assure might be a strong word. This area of science is largely based on inductive reasoning (as is much science). This science relies on fossils. It is impossible to know if we have a truly representative set of fossils. It is impossible to know if we are missing a set of fossils that would contradict the theory. This science is to date not reproducible. This science relies heavily on genetics and, though I’m just a layman, it seems that epigenetics might play a very much unappreciated role in history.

My point is that I’d not use the word assure here and I dont believe that is based on a radically skeptic outlook.

 

[buffalo]

1. Science assures us that this is true. The evidence for it overwhelming, the evidence against it non-existant.

.

What??? :nope:

 

[Publisher]

Science does NOT teach we evolved from apes or monkeys…humans evolved alongside apea and monkeys from more primitive variations of the species.

It is a “creationsist” misconception, misunderstanding and in some cases, deception to assert "science teaches we evolved from apes’…no evolutionist I have ever read or spoken to believe this…humans evolved from more primitive variations of the species over millions of years.

 

[beeliner]

What??? :nope:

You are What???ing the wrong poster. I responded to the other poster in his/her own frame of reference, s/he said “monkey-like”.

…humans evolved alongside apea and monkeys from more primitive variations of the species.

…which, for the sake of argument, we will assume were more or less ‘monkey-like’ rather than fish-like or rock-like. OK?

I’m still waiting for the name of that Catholic university that teaches that species do not evolve, macro, micro, or velcro.

]

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I think I understand the Heisenberg Principle, but I’m not sure.

I like it! Reminds me of the Joke: “Werner Heisenberg was pulled over by a cop one night while driving and the Cop says 'Do you know how fast you were going!?” to which he responded ‘No, but I know where I am.’"

1. “Macro evolution” is a catch-phrase of creationists.

Not really. Granted many creationists misunderstand what macroevolution is, but I promise you it’s a real biological term used by biologists. Microevolution refers to the change in allele frequencies of a population over time while macroevolution refers to the phenotypic changes in visible traits of a population with respect to another population over time. The former gives rise to the latter, and usually, but not always, macroevolution is evident in the bifurcation of populations into separate species.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I never mentioned anything about prototypes, only that humanity was far more ancient than the timeframe of the Biblical accounts. You are correct in the figures for H sapiens and the other humanoid species, that is a long way from all of them, along with animals, created in the same day a few thousand years ago.

Indeed, though when I spoke of prototypes I was referring to Adam-and-Eve-as-metaphor. It has been my experience that all the folks who espouse this belief believe in a pool of prototypical Adams and Eves from which modern humans arose. As of yet this has indeed been spoken against by the Church (though I understand some theologians like Jimmy Akin have taken a more nuanced view which allows for possible polygenism). Nevertheless, it’s not as if anything in the evolutionary record actually disproves the idea that all modern humans arose from a single, contemporary human couple, and so as Catholics I think it behooves us to give Holy Mother Church the benefit of the doubt and deny polygenism.

Regarding a literal ‘first pair’ from whom all of humanity descended, that is somewhat like whether Mary had other children - she either did or didn’t, it’s a matter of fact, not of faith.

I disagree. These strike at the very faith itself. It is a dogma that all have inherited the stain of Original Sin from our first parents Adam and Eve, and while it might be conceivable that one day a crafty theologian or cleric might come up with an interpretation of Genesis which allows for polygenism and Original Sin, that to date is not the case and so we cannot accept polygenism as Catholics. Concerning Mary’s supposed other children; while this might be a matter of fact, the dogma of her perpetual virginity necessarily follows its negation and so we cannot under any circumstance believe that Mary had other children.

The Church’s authority does not extend to matters of fact, though she is certainly free to offer her opinion.

Let’s not forget that while the infallibility of the Church only necessarily follows proclamations of faith and morals, that doesn’t preclude the Church from speaking infallibly about matters peripheral to them, even if those matters rest squarely in the domain of history or science.

 

[Ahimsa]

…so we cannot accept polygenism as Catholics.

Nowhere has the Church stated this.

 

[edwest2]

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Source: Catholic Answers Library

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bezant]

Some Catholics believe in a Literal Creation story, and that Adam and Eve really existed while other Catholics believe that the Genesis Creation story is not to be taken literal and that Evolution is true. Though some people (like me ) are still trying to decide. What is your matter on the issue

I do not believe that the Creation story was meant to describe the mechanics of creation, but the lesson of creation, of life, of the human story with God.

 

[beeliner]

1. I disagree. These strike at the very faith itself. It is a dogma that all have inherited the stain of Original Sin from our first parents Adam and Eve, and while it might be conceivable that one day a crafty theologian or cleric might come up with an interpretation of Genesis which allows for polygenism and Original Sin, that to date is not the case and so we cannot accept polygenism as Catholics.
2. Concerning Mary’s supposed other children; while this might be a matter of fact, the dogma of her perpetual virginity necessarily follows its negation and so we cannot under any circumstance believe that Mary had other children.
3. Let’s not forget that while the infallibility of the Church only necessarily follows proclamations of faith and morals, that doesn’t preclude the Church from speaking infallibly about matters peripheral to them, even if those matters rest squarely in the domain of history or science.

1. I think that you are missing my point, perhaps I am missing yours also. Original sin is something that will NEVER be proven in this world, it is purely a matter of faith, and by no means a universal belief. Knowledge concerning man’s origins is a different thing entirely. We have a much better understanding of that now than at the time that the Genesis creation stories were cribbed from even earlier pagan sources.
2. Same principle applies. I’m sure you’ll agree that Mary and Joseph were real people. Thus their personal history could conceivably (no pun intended) become clearer in the future, by whatever means. Also, her perpetual virginity is purely a Catholic concept. I know of no other Christian body which considers it a matter of concern. Nor have I ever understood why Catholicism does.
3. You mean like the sun orbitting the earth? With all due respect, I think you are incorrect here.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Hello beeliner,

1. I think that you are missing my point, perhaps I am missing yours also. Original sin is something that will NEVER be proven in this world, it is purely a matter of faith, and by no means a universal belief. Knowledge concerning man’s origins is a different thing entirely. We have a much better understanding of that now than at the time that the Genesis creation stories were cribbed from even earlier pagan sources.

From this and your previous posts you seem to espouse the paleontologist/evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould’s philosophical theory of “Non-Overlapping Magisteria”. This is the position that religion and science have completely separate domains and never should the two intertwine. I don’t agree with this position, especially concerning particular Catholic dogmata since there are indeed certain beliefs which are informed by scientific fact.

In Humani Generis Pope Pius XII stated (emphasis mine),

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.

While it is true that the dogma of Original Sin is a matter of faith and human origins are a matter of objective reality, certain hypotheses (such as polygenism) have negative implications for Original Sin. As His Holiness points out, it seems irreconcilable that both the scientific hypothesis of polygenism and the belief in universal original sin are correct. As I mentioned earlier, there are some rather ambitious theologians (such as Catholic Answers’ own Jimmy Akin) who think that they need not be irreconcilable, but at the moment they are. Either there really is an original sin committed by an original human couple, the consequences of which were propagated to all of humankind (which means polygenism is false) or there really were multiple “first humans” (which means that Original sin is false). The only way to get past this is by cognitive dissonance.

1. Same principle applies. I’m sure you’ll agree that Mary and Joseph were real people. Thus their personal history could conceivably (no pun intended) become clearer in the future, by whatever means. Also, her perpetual virginity is purely a Catholic concept. I know of no other Christian body which considers it a matter of concern. Nor have I ever understood why Catholicism does.

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has defined, infallibly, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a perpetual virgin. It is a matter of faith which Catholics are bound to believe. I mentioned this as an example of how science or history might overlap with theology. If we are to believe that Mary is a perpetual virgin then the historical and scientific record must also bear fact to her not having any other children. Both cannot simultaneously be true.

1. You mean like the sun orbitting the earth? With all due respect, I think you are incorrect here.

No, you misunderstand me here. I said that while the infallibility of the Church only necessarily follows proclamations of faith and morals, that doesn’t preclude the Church from speaking infallibly about matters peripheral to them, even if those matters rest squarely in the domain of history or science. This isn’t to say that the Church is actually infallible with regards to everything under the Sun, rather that she could be speaking infallibly about things not concerning faith or morals especially when such things are peripherally related to, or have implications for matters of faith and morals.

 

[rbarcia]

1. “Macro evolution” is a catch-phrase of creationists.
2. Science assures us that this is true. The evidence for it overwhelming, the evidence against it non-existant.

The Catholic educational system is arguably the best in the world. Please name ONE Catholic university that teaches what you assert rather than orthodox science.

3… Since God transcends time, and since quantum physics assures us that time and space are the same thing, it’s a meaningless statement.

Can you give examples of this overwhelming evidence ?

 

[Jack_Bauer]

beeliner! He’s a witch. He’s a witch. Let’s burn her…or him.

Lay off the heretic. He can’t help if he doesn’t know LaPlace Transforms. So, let’s burn him. Or throw him in boiling pot of soup to see he … e v o l v e s … ooooooo.

And then again we could see if he floats like wood.

He’s a witch, he’s a witch… [torches burning, crowd of angry peasants rallying to burn him]