Evolution chat...

[Evan]

Tom of Assisi:

Darwin’s natural selection idea was created by him to show how humanity could have “happened” naturally (without Divine assistance). Of course it is used by atheists to attack Christians. Natural selection makes the atheists’ point.

How can Adam be a myth or a metaphore when Christ and the CCC refer to him as a person?

Why do Catholics who accept the Virgin Birth and the miricles of Jesus think that Genesis is just a story?

1. Darwin’s natural selection idea used God’s creation (nature) to evolve humanoids. God breathed his spirit into Adam to create humanity giving man a spirit.
2. The Catholic Church officially condemns anyone who
   a) does not believe in the existance of Adam
   b) believes that Adam represents a collection of people
   c) believes that Adam was one person but his decendents married with other people
   [Gaudiem et Spes, documents from Council of Trent, as referenced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 390]
3. what is wrong with something being just a story—but you should leave off the words ‘JUST A’. The Church teaches that the bible is true in whole and in part but must be read according to the type of liturature being written. The Church also teaches that the bible was orally transmitted before being written down (just a story), both the New and Old Testaments.

 

[dcdurel]

Godless evolution is a nice myth, but hardly believable.

It would have to answer all these questions, and it can answer none of them. Evolutionists will actually understand these
questions better than an ordinary person, as these are based on some knowledge of Darwinian evolution, But the evolutionist will be totally clueless as to the answers.

Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? (this is impossible according to evolution)
How could metamorphosis evolve?
If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
How could the first living cell begin?
Evolutionists have actually given up on even speculating on how life “evolved” from chemicals. They have no clue anymore and they prefer not to discuss it.
If by blind faith they still believe a cell could assemble itself from chemicals, and suddenly gain life, then they have another problem. How could that first cell reproduce?
Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
How could sexual reproduction evolve?
How could immune systems evolve?
These are excellent questions to give to biology teachers who believe in evolution.

Of course they are taught that evolution “had” to happen, otherwise we would have to say God did all this, and science cannot allow this.
Ask them why not?

Point out that Einstein and Hawkings refused to believe in the big bang for years, because they refuse to believe that God created the universe. Now, finally, they and all astro physicists accept it, because they have finally learned to accept a creator of some sort Brandon Carter another astrophysist gave further evidence for the design of the universe, called the athropic principle.

straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

Thus to refuse to accept God’s creation of things is both bad logic and bad science.

 

[buffalo]

dcdurel:

Godless evolution is a nice myth, but hardly believable.

It would have to answer all these questions, and it can answer none of them. Evolutionists will actually understand these
questions better than an ordinary person, as these are based on some knowledge of Darwinian evolution, But the evolutionist will be totally clueless as to the answers.

Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? (this is impossible according to evolution)
How could metamorphosis evolve?
If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
How could the first living cell begin?
Evolutionists have actually given up on even speculating on how life “evolved” from chemicals. They have no clue anymore and they prefer not to discuss it.
If by blind faith they still believe a cell could assemble itself from chemicals, and suddenly gain life, then they have another problem. How could that first cell reproduce?
Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
How could sexual reproduction evolve?
How could immune systems evolve?
These are excellent questions to give to biology teachers who believe in evolution.

Of course they are taught that evolution “had” to happen, otherwise we would have to say God did all this, and science cannot allow this.
Ask them why not?

Point out that Einstein and Hawkings refused to believe in the big bang for years, because they refuse to believe that God created the universe. Now, finally, they and all astro physicists accept it, because they have finally learned to accept a creator of some sort Brandon Carter another astrophysist gave further evidence for the design of the universe, called the athropic principle.

straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

Thus to refuse to accept God’s creation of things is both bad logic and bad science.

Naturalists, atheists and materialists all have to live or die by evolution or they will have to face facts. Something they definitely do not want to do.

A question - since science can not explain the supernatural - then science classes actually teach our children the lowest common denominator. They need to be shown that science is a foundation, but not the end all. That there can be something bigger than science.

 

[Evan]

Macro evolution is a big problem…That is where a new species appears without a transition. Such as the horse. There are precursors about 3/4 size, but none between our horse and the previous one. It’s like one day…there is a horse (and not just one if it plans to mate)

Micro evolution, only seems to work for closely related species. That is the thing that generated Darwins theory: birds of different species with minor differences. But using this method you can’t evolve feathers, eyeballs, vision, echo-location.

But, the fossil record should not be a lie, or this might imply God placed it there to mislead us (lie to us). So is intellegent design the answer where God has a hand in the evolution of new species? Or does God continually place new species in the environment as old ones die? (or are these two the same)

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

1) Darwin’s natural selection idea used God’s creation (nature) to evolve humanoids. God breathed his spirit into Adam to create humanity giving man a spirit.

1. The Catholic Church officially condemns anyone who
   a) does not believe in the existance of Adam
   b) believes that Adam represents a collection of people
   c) believes that Adam was one person but his decendents married with other people
   [Gaudiem et Spes, documents from Council of Trent, as referenced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 390]
2. what is wrong with something being just a story—but you should leave off the words ‘JUST A’. The Church teaches that the bible is true in whole and in part but must be read according to the type of liturature being written. The Church also teaches that the bible was orally transmitted before being written down (just a story), both the New and Old Testaments.

I agree with your well-stated points–except for number 1. Darwin’s theory was created to demonstrate that life could have originated on its own and then evolved into man. Modern day atheists agree.

If Adam is a descendant of ape-creatures, then whence comes original sin and death…why the need for Christ?

 

[UnknownCloud]

By Tom:

Darwin’s natural selection idea was created by him to show how humanity could have “happened” naturally (without Divine assistance). Of course it is used by atheists to attack Christians. Natural selection makes the atheists’ point.

There are many opinions that involve the origin of species and Darwin’s wasn’t much different in its conclusion from myth. Darwin based his conclusion by observations, so did the ancients. Darwin’s conclusions, if it were treated as science indead of a religion, would have to undergo serious experimentation and observation to be considered a credible theory…but it wasn’t. No one would accept Einstein’s theory of relativity without mathematical proof…when they got that, they tested it experimentally. Evolution has some clues - that’s it. But, with respect to mathematics, evolution has no credible foudation at all since the mathematical probability of chemicals forming into a living cell that can immediately reproduce and complicate itself is ZERO. Some optimistic theorists have calculated 1 in 10^180 (1 followed by 180 zeroes)…that number is totally obscure, since the estimated number of atoms in the entire universe is only 10^86. There would be a much greater chance for a tornado to assemble a 747 jet airplane by passing through a junkyard. That’s the absurd ‘evidence’ that evolution has (in general).

How can Adam be a myth or a metaphore when Christ and the CCC refer to him as a person?

Myths can still be about real people and events. But myths tell the story in a spiritual way…myths aren’t necessarily concerned with sensual experience as they are with spiritual (intangible) realities. We can only come to know the spiritual via inference (in art, such as writing), and that is what myth attempts to do.

Why do Catholics who accept the Virgin Birth and the miricles of Jesus think that Genesis is just a story?

Genesis is not just a story. It is a myth, which doesn’t mean it never happened or doesn’t have any believable value. As stated above, myths approach reality in a different way but they can still be based on tangible things like real people and things and events. Think of it this way - the writer of Genesis was more impressed by the spiritual nature of events of our first parents than he was of their natural origin or experience…the Bible was not preserved for us so that we can be reminded about what we can easily discover about our physical universe, it was preserved for our faith and hope in the truth.

What about original sin? Is that just a myth too? Then why do we need Christ as a savior?

Original sin is perhaps more real that real. This discussion forum wouldn’t even be necessary, for example, if there was no sin - no ignorance, no confusion, no disharmony, etc. I’ve never met a human being of any religious faith or non-faith that didn’t somehow believe that humanity is corrupt. Original Sin is way and by far the strongest universal doctrine of religion.
The need for a savior becomes obvious I think…

 

[Benadam]

Evolution theory seems to ccontradict Holy Scripture but isn’t necessarily so. For instance, in Genesis the sentence that describes how man is formed isn’t violated at all by the evolution theory. I think this is very significant because this one sentence in Genesis is the focal point of how our flesh is formed according to God’s Word. “God formed man out of the clay of the earth”.

There are probably several objections concerned with translation but nothing can take away from the main theme that the flesh of man is formed out of the ‘stuff’ of earth. We are of the earth like everything else here. That’s our likeness to the physical creation, and *our *flesh is it’s goal (arguably) and end as the next sentence seems to point out. “God breathed into his nostril and Adam became a living soul” I paraphrased but it doesn’t matter at this point. This sentence points out that we also have a likeness that is not of the earth but of God.

Nowhere in Genesis as it concerns man do we have a reason to believe that evolution theory contradicts it’s revelation of our origin.

Genesis 1 hints at the possibilities surrounding the formation of consciousness particular to man. The account hints also at how that consciousness rose from lower states. There is a certain reality in regards of a lower form of life ‘evolving’ or transfiguring into another. I read an article that quoted John Paul II stating " In order for a lower state of life to enter into a higher state, the higher state must reach down and lift the lower state up to it" I think this is key to unlocking how life in it’s physical manifestation was created.

As long as the Word of God is approached in faith contradictions become invitations to dis-cover mystery.

Peace,

Marv
.

 

[Robin]

sbcoral:

…which implies that we have to accept the creation story as fact, doesn’t it?

The creation story as literal fact? No.

That at some point in time there was an individual( we call Adam) and an individual (we call Eve)
and that God Himself give them an Imortal Soul - We as Catholics must believe.

The creation story teaches us Who (God) and Why (because God wished it.) We do not really need to know How He did it.

Everything else is academic - and not important to our spiritual welfare.

 

[buffalo]

Robin:

The creation story as literal fact? No.

That at some point in time there was an individual( we call Adam) and an individual (we call Eve)
and that God Himself give them an Imortal Soul - We as Catholics must believe.

The creation story teaches us Who (God) and Why (because God wished it.) We do not really need to know How He did it.

Everything else is academic - and not important to our spiritual welfare.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Not really. Reconcile that Eve was made from Adam.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Many people talk about evolution as if it denies the hand of God. We certainly don’t understand the mechanism by which God worked but I believe that he gave us minds to be able to follow his great creation. We know that there were other hominids before us. We know that around 40,000 BC homo sapiens began exhibiting a myriad of new behaviors - one of which is what can only be called religion. This did not exist before. Artistic expression, creativity, etc. etc. burst upon the world.

I have never had any problem with “evolution” even though I have two degrees in anthropology. One cannot look at the splendor of creation without seeing the hand of God at work. No, I can’t quantify it. No, I can’t prove it. But as Tielhard de Chardin once stated, “Something is afoot in the universe”. The more I learn, the more I am in awe of God’s creation.

 

[Benadam]

buffalo:

Not really. Reconcile that Eve was made from Adam.

I’m going to preface the answer to that with an enterpretation of Genesis that will offer an anthropology capable of reconciling the origin of woman from Adam or as she is ‘known’ after original sin, Eve.

Consider this, when God created Adam in His own image and likeness, He created* them *male and female in His likeness and image. Not a man and a woman but a male and a female. Not a man in His image nor a woman but a male and female. They are made in His image. Then the passage goes on to say that the male and female are commanded to populate, subdue and rule the earth. It follows that God has endowed them with the faculties or powers to do so. I want to point out here that the natural order and the laws that govern it served man until the original sin. There seems to be a paradox in the text when we consider that ( nature already serves man ) in light of God’s command to subdue and rule the earth. The paradox vanishes when the idea that the earth is a metaphore for flesh is applied.

Suppose that in *them *is the dawn of human consciousness particular to man or Adam. That in the bond between them and the offspring that results is the image of God as it is made visible in their lives as a result of the conscious awareness that claims " I am". Not yet able to individuate from the primary familial identity, but in possession of the faculties endowed by God for that end. That the command to subdue and rule was the necessary drive to bring to fullness those faculties of intellect and reason that offer the requirements necessary for a will that can rule the flesh. A will that is not obedient to any external influence in it’s commands to the body that serves it. I suggest that this is also the earth we are commanded to subdue and rule.

Suppose at this point man has populated the earth and has covered it like *dust. *Man is in possession of faculties that have become matured by the discipline in obeying the driving command of God. Those same faculties eventually becoming fully capable of serving a will, a will not only of a body of man but embodied as a man. “And God made man out of the dust of the earth”. The same man that subdued the earth is the one formed out of it. God created them male and female and called them Man. God formed Man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostril a ‘living’ soul. They are him and he is them.

So at the point man is capable of the self awareness that would lead to the sting of death, his image in God becomes manifest in it’s eternal quality merited through the obedience to the command to populate, subdue and rule the earth which he is made of.

The concepts applied to Genesis in this enterpetation should be familiar.

I haven’t time to reconcile Eve’s origin from Adam’s rib. I’ll end with a bible passage that will lead into it if read in light of the enterpretation I present.

" But for Adam no helpmeet suitable was found."

 

[Neithan]

Suppose at this point man has populated the earth and has covered it like *dust. *Man is in possession of faculties that have become matured by the discipline in obeying the driving command of God. Those same faculties eventually becoming fully capable of serving a will, a will not only of a body of man but embodied as a man. “And God made man out of the dust of the earth”. The same man that subdued the earth is the one formed out of it. God created them male and female and called them Man. God formed Man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostril a ‘living’ soul. They are him and he is them.

Are you using “Adam” to represent ONE man, or Man in a general term, like “mankind” ? According to Humani Generis “Adam” was one man in history, and we are all descended from him. You can’t use him as a metaphor for a multitude of original ancestors. According to Catholic orthodoxy, anyway.

Personally, I am having a lot of trouble reconciling Pius XII’s encyclical with the evidence of evolution as it stands now, and the history of civilization. I’m beginning to favour a split between the historical Adam and Eve and the symbolical Adam and Eve. It is clear from Biblical description that the historical Adam and Eve must have lived in neolithic times (in the last 10 000 years) because of the mention of farming and such, however, our nearest common ancestor (Y-chromosome Adam) was 60 000 years ago!!

Something just doesn’t add up. Either: the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is both History and Myth, in the sense that the ‘real’ Adam and Eve were among the first neolithic peoples, and their story is used symbolically to describe the fall of our original parents who probably lived something like 200 000 years ago; or the Pope is not infallible and Humani Generis is incorrect. I hate to think what would happen to the Church if the latter were true, but the former is quite a stretch in itself.

According to the Faith, polygenism is wrong. According to the Science, monogenism is wrong. If both of these are wrong, what does that leave?

This Evolution vs. the Bible stuff is really exhausting, and a little frightening at times.

A veritable labyrinth of questions remain: how long did Adam and Eve live? Could it be that they lived many thousands of years in Eden? Perhaps many tens of thousands of years, before they sinned? And just where the heck was Eden? Was it on Earth? What was going on outside of Eden while Adam and Eve lived there? Where do we draw the line between Myth and History?

My head hurts.

 

[Benadam]

Neithan:

Are you using “Adam” to represent ONE man, or Man in a general term, like “mankind” ?
.

I’m suggesting he is both. He is Mankind that has fulfilled the command to subdue and rule the earth embodied as one man. Both are man both are Adam. All of them as one man.

The Church is fine with it as long as it doesn’t claim that man continues to evolve. Remember the word earth is a metaphore for the word flesh. The command to populate, subdue and rule was meant to bring to fullness the faculties that seperate the souls of man from the souls of animals in this enterpretation.

Neithan:

You can’t use him as a metaphor for a multitude of original ancestors. According to Catholic orthodoxy, anyway.
.

They aren’t ancestors because Adam isn’t formed from a single pair here, he is formed like the Scripture reveals, "out of the dust of the earth. Incarnated. The generating force was God. But even if he was that wouldn’t effect the integrity of the enterpretation.

Neithan:

Personally, I am having a lot of trouble reconciling Pius XII’s encyclical with the evidence of evolution as it stands now, and the history of civilization. I’m beginning to favour a split between the historical Adam and Eve and the symbolical Adam and Eve. It is clear from Biblical description that the historical Adam and Eve must have lived in neolithic times (in the last 10 000 years) because of the mention of farming and such, however, our nearest common ancestor (Y-chromosome Adam) was 60 000 years ago!!
.

Time is relatively irrelevant compared to consciousness in regards of our origins.

Neithan:

Something just doesn’t add up. Either: the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is both History and Myth, in the sense that the ‘real’ Adam and Eve were among the first neolithic peoples, and their story is used symbolically to describe the fall of our original parents who probably lived something like 200 000 years ago; or the Pope is not infallible and Humani Generis is incorrect. I hate to think what would happen to the Church if the latter were true, but the former is quite a stretch in itself.
.

I think the part that isn’t adding up for you is that your view doesn’t include the concept that a higher state of life has to reach down and lift up a lower state in order for it to transfigure into a higher degree of perfection.
This is what Genesis reveals, that God ‘formed’ Adam and then ‘breathed’ immortality into his soul. Self determination and will are elements of freedom. Freedom no other corporeal creature has. Freedom is it’s self a requirement of love.In that sense what gives rise to the powers of soul that seperates man from animals is eternal love. Eternal love generates an immortal soul.

Neithan:

According to the Faith, polygenism is wrong. According to the Science, monogenism is wrong. If both of these are wrong, what does that leave?
.

this enterpretation doesn’t require polygenism. There are no genes that seperate the Adam thats both male and female from the Adam that is a man. Adam is man as well as a man here.

Neithan:

This Evolution vs. the Bible stuff is really exhausting, and a little frightening at times.
.

Don’t let it do that to you. The bottom line is, no matter how it happened God did it.

Neithan:

A veritable labyrinth of questions remain: how long did Adam and Eve live? Could it be that they lived many thousands of years in Eden? Perhaps many tens of thousands of years, before they sinned? And just where the heck was Eden? Was it on Earth? What was going on outside of Eden while Adam and Eve lived there? Where do we draw the line between Myth and History?

Adam’s earthly life as well as ours was meant to end naturally by entering into the next life body and soul. Adam lived 930 years if I remember correctly. The longevity of life that the patriarchs experienced was meant for a sign of salvation. When Methuselah died after living 967 years there was no longer a visible sign of our meaning or of God’s plan of salvation. His flesh was the last sign of hope for the age, when he died his flesh was no longer a sign of eternal life but became a sign of death and hope was gone , the world was fit for judgement.

The concepts used in this enterpretation of Genesis are the same concepts applied to Christ. We are His body, in Him all man is reconciled . He is Incarnated not by carnal will but of God’s will, like Adam. Adam is formed in the womb of a sinless earth like Jesus was formed in Mary’s sinless womb. In this enterpretation Christ is revealed more perfectly as the second Adam, and Adam is revealed more perfectly as the image of God.

 

[Benadam]

Neithan:

A veritable labyrinth of questions remain: how long did Adam and Eve live? Could it be that they lived many thousands of years in Eden? Perhaps many tens of thousands of years, before they sinned? And just where the heck was Eden? Was it on Earth? What was going on outside of Eden while Adam and Eve lived there? Where do we draw the line between Myth and History?

My head hurts.

If you keep in mind that the way our earthly life was meant to end and what is natural, is for us to enter into the next life body and soul, you have to understand that there would be no bones or graves as evidence for our existence. For how long? I dunno. But even if our bodies did die as we populated , subdued and ruled the earth it doesn’t necessarily mean that death had entered into the world.

The way I see it, mankind before he made visible his immortality by having his immortal soul embodied as a man, lacked the ability to use his intellect in it’s full capacity. This kept him from being able to apprehend eternal realities to his full capacity as well, the first of which is death. Without possessing the self awareness required to imagine an existence that didn’t include himself, death was rendered incapable of attaching it’s sting to him. This kept him from distorting the reality of his true meaning. This realization of eternal life was a state of consiousness disinterested in corporeal signs that to us make visible the sting of death. This is how man could experience the end of his corporeal existence yet live in an state of consciousness that didn’t include death.

The garden of Eden is both a real place and a state of consciousness. It’s the place made evident by the text and archeology. It’s also the state of consciousness that makes the mystery of God visible through the body and participates in that mystery made visible with the rest of creation.

 

[Benadam]

Neithan:

Personally, I am having a lot of trouble reconciling Pius XII’s encyclical with the evidence of evolution as it stands now, and the history of civilization. I’m beginning to favour a split between the historical Adam and Eve and the symbolical Adam and Eve. It is clear from Biblical description that the historical Adam and Eve must have lived in neolithic times (in the last 10 000 years) because of the mention of farming and such, however, our nearest common ancestor (Y-chromosome Adam) was 60 000 years ago!!

.

You have to be carefull when attributing behaviour with a state of consciousness. Behaviours can be identical yet be signs of quite different states of percieving reality. For instance the behaviour attached to service can be done out of selfish or unselfish reasons but outwardly appear identical.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am really having trouble reading these posts and reconciling them to this a Catholic site. Hey folks, what about the “Out of Africa” theory or “mitochondrial Eve”? Or, let’s just sit down and say that the earth was created in 4004 BC? Am I on Jimmy Swaggert’s website?

Did not Our Lord give you a brain? Are you really going to tell me there was a “real” physical Eden or is it a metaphor for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle with very little work as opposed to the agricultural lifestyle which fits the expulsion from Eden. Do you not have faith? I remember Brother Eugene in our religion class in 1964 definining “conscience” on the blackboard. He wrote two words “con” and “scientia” - “with knowledge” How can you restrict the “Creator of the Stars at Night” (Conditur Alme Siderum) Want me to sing it to you?] to a literal interpretation of the Bible? THESE THINGS ARE NOT irreconcilable. The fact is that the whole of creation is beyond our comprehension. To restrict God the Father to a literal interpretation of the Bible is to ignore the great gift of a MIND that we were given.

I’m sorry I’m on my soapbox. I live in an area of the country where “sola scriputura” reigns. We Catholics were the heart and soul of the Renaissance. We “men of the west” as Tokien puts it are in a desperate struggle against fundamentalist Islam. Can you not just accept that the archaeoligcal record is an imperfect record of the Acts of God throughout history?

Please don’t try to reduce God’s creation. God’s creation is unfolding to us even to this day. Oh, my, should I bring up Copernicus and Gallileo?

 

[Benadam]

brotherhrolf:

I am really having trouble reading these posts and reconciling them to this a Catholic site. Hey folks, what about the “Out of Africa” theory or “mitochondrial Eve”? Or, let’s just sit down and say that the earth was created in 4004 BC? Am I on Jimmy Swaggert’s website?
Did not Our Lord give you a brain?

brother, you’re too funny. Ok, I’ll admit I can cry on que if necessary. Only if I do something really really stupid.
and you’ve just scratched the surface brother I got alot more of that where I’m coming from.

Are you really going to tell me there was a “real” physical Eden or is it a metaphor for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle with very little work as opposed to the agricultural lifestyle which fits the expulsion from Eden.

Yes, I do believe there was a ‘real’ Eve, don’t you? What religion are you anyway? Also, like I know how to read mythic literature brother. **
If you mean literal as in a real rib was removed from Adam to make Eve? well no, but I do believe if I knew what it was talking about I’de go, ahhh perfect way to describe that, He took a Rib and Made her!! I see!
If you mean literally as in something literally happened that the description in Genesis literally communicates with literal words literally perfectly. yes I take it literally.
** I do believe Eden is a real place and Genesis is describing real people.

the agricultural lifestyle which fits the expulsion from Eden.

Do you think Adam organized crops and turned tribes into cities? Nah, Cain got confused thought subdue and rule meant control, to treat creation like a thing. Cain, lol . Never really felt humiliated by the whole affair. No the way mankind was led by the nose because of agriculture wasn’t natural. C’mon, Adam repented.

Do you not have faith? I remember Brother Eugene in our religion class in 1964 definining “conscience” on the blackboard. He wrote two words “con” and “scientia” - “with knowledge” How can you restrict the “Creator of the Stars at Night” (Conditur Alme Siderum) Want me to sing it to you?] to a literal interpretation of the Bible? THESE THINGS ARE NOT irreconcilable. The fact is that the whole of creation is beyond our comprehension. To restrict God the Father to a literal interpretation of the Bible is to ignore the great gift of a MIND that we were given.

I’m sorry brother, I’m not restricting Him. In my opinion you are. I agree that creation is unfathonable, in fact I expect God to keep me in a new universe , and not just ‘a’ new universe but a universe that’s ‘changelessly’ new. Like a child who’s universe is constantly being redefined with every mystery dis-covered. On** the same note I don’t limit His ability to say exactly what He means once I know where He’s coming from. I also don’t underestimate His creation. He endowed us with the capacity to understand exactly what is being communicated in the Holy Scriptures. **

I’m sorry I’m on my soapbox.

No problem, I keep mine in my truck. It’s small eneogh to load with a fork lift, so I take it everywhere.

I live in an area of the country where “sola scriputura” reigns. We Catholics were the heart and soul of the Renaissance. We “men of the west” as Tokien puts it are in a desperate struggle against fundamentalist Islam. Can you not just accept that the archaeoligcal record is an imperfect record of the Acts of God throughout history?

No way the record records perfectly, it’s us, we are imperfect. hehe. Islam, yeah stuck in the past, the men are still scared of the women. Brother , don’t worry about Islam, they just got good manners.

Please don’t try to reduce God’s creation. God’s creation is unfolding to us even to this day. Oh, my, should I bring up Copernicus and Gallileo?

**I can’t believe you’re talking to me like this, I think you must have me confused with some one else. **

Brother , I like you, you say it like it is. My view about limiting God? In relation to faith in Him as creator I say it don’t matter ‘how’ anything happened really, however it happened God did it.
Knowing how He did it though teaches me a little bit more about Him every time and it’s always wonderfull to see.

I believe that everything I’ve posted about Genesis is possible. And Brother, mocking something before you understand it doesn’t become you. Give me a real critique, I might find disappointment but I prefer Truth over pleasure. I doubt I Have to choose though.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Benadam: OK for the sake of argument let’s say that Creation began at 9:30 am on October 12, 4004 BC. Archbishop Usher set this standard way back in the early 1600s and it has been used as a standard by biblical literalists since then. A co-worker who is Church of Christ believes this as well. How does one explain radio carbon dates which far precede this date? How does one explain natural phenomena such as the Grand Canyon? How does one recocile the discoveries made by the Hubble telescope?

If you want to accept a literal Adam, a literal Eve, a literal Garden of Eden, OK. But as is evident in some of your posts, I can sense that you are having problems reconciling these things. I do not believe in Evolution as anything else but the cloudy record of God’s acts of creation. I also remember that there are two records of Creation in Genesis - the first of which says:

“God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them” Genesis 1: 27.
(Emphasis mine).

My point in my post was that God gave us brains to use. The Church only recently recanted on Gallileo. Stating that what we are seeing in the record of evolution is the hand of God creating amplifies the awe and majesty of that creation. A literal version of creation is just as awesome but then you would have to revert to Archbishop Usher’s standard. If it were absolutely true, then the physical world around us would reflect this. The evidence from the physical world does not reflect it.

I don’t believe that you have the kind of wholesale anti-Catholicism in Tempe that we face here in the land of Jimmy Swaggert. And yes, brother Jimmy is still here along with his cohorts down at the christian freedom center, revival temple, highway to glory, son light, etc. etc. I’ve had thirteen years of Catholic education and I was in high school during Vatican II. My Catholicism should not be in question. Nothing I have stated is contrary to Church teachings.

Hrolf

 

[Benadam]

it’s obvious you aren’t seeing past a prejudice because i don’t suggest a timeline whatsoever, I don’t suggest a literal enterpretation, and all the other bias accusations you through at this enterpretation before a single comment about what it really contains.

you remind me of …well I won’t say what relation to me this person is…but they were afraid of having their mysteries uncovered by reason. It made them uncomfortable to think that there were understandable processes God was operating within.

Like baptism… there is a very simple metapysical reality occuring that people just don’t see but is right there under your nose

Hin: Jesus said John was a perfect pattern of righteousness.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I think we’re not on the same wavelength at all. We are speaking at cross purposes and your ad hominem jab at me is precisely the kind of response I get from the fundamentalists across the street.

Very well then. I leave the field to you. The world was created at 9:30 am on October 12, 4004 BC because an Anglican archbishop computed the time based upon Genesis. All the solid physical evidence is just a ploy of Satan to confuse us.

Adios amigo.