B
Benadam
Guest
Evan said:
All of them ARE the one Adam
all in all = 1 all
- Status
All of them ARE the one Adam
all in all = 1 all
B
Benadam
Guest
Evan said:
All of them ARE the one Adam the one Adam is them
all in all = 1 all
would you say their is one Christ or multiple christ’s?
E
Evan
Guest
I would say there is one Jesus Christ, but of course there are many christs…anointed: Kings, Prophets, Priests were all anointed in the old testament. But I believe you were asking about Jesus the new Adam.
Adam is a man, not an archtype of humanity, an actual man; like my dad or my brother. He was the first man. To see all things as god would be Pantheism, to see all people as god would be New Age. Your hypotheses sound very New Agey to me.
Jesus was a man, one man, like my dad or my brother.
The body of Christ, has Jesus as the head. Through the sacrament of confirmation, we too are anointed (made Christ) to fully participate in the body of Christ. In this instance Christ refers to God, not Jesus the man but Jesus the man-god.
We are not members of Adams body, for he was a man, not a man-god.
B
Benadam
Guest
Adam isn’t an archetype? Jesus isn’t the second Adam?
Jesus was a man, like your dad, yes, as Adam was, I agree.
No we aren’t members of Adam’s body, he is a man not a man/god, I agree
All in all is refered to here as a concept to help clarify this model not a comparison to the universal concept. All in all is not pantheism unless you say the biblical use of the concept is pantheism, in that case I disagree.
I agree there is one Christ and at the same time many christ’s , I agree.
I wouldn’t refer to Jesus as the new Adam because Adam is a personal being I would refer to Jesus as the Apostles did as the second Adam or the New Man.
I appreciate your response Evan, I do think your objections are based on a prejudice of this hypothesis being possible.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Phil:
I’ve got two degrees in anthropology and try to keep up with my field. I did an internet search to see if I had missed something. Hominids prior to Homo sapiens did not exhibit the behaviors that spring into being 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. They did not, indeed could not, envision shaping tools for specific purposes, e.g. shaping bone into a needle to be able to sew clothes). They did not bury their dead in a ceremonial fashion (indicative of belief in an after-life) [the Neanderthal burial in the Shanidar Cave in which they found flower pollen has been questioned and is now found to be suspect]. They did not have music (the Neanderthal “flute” has been found to match the jaw prints (punctures) of a dire wolf. They did not have art - none, nada, zippo. There are some schools that believe they did not have language as we know it.
Yes, like the gorrillas in the zoo which passed by the dead body of the old gorrilla (this is a recent story) they understood when an individual died. But this is not the same as self awareness in which one knows that one is finite.
What can be clearly recognized as modern humanity springs full bloom between 40,000 to 50,000 years ago to us - Homo sapiens not to Homo neandertalensis or Homo erectus much less the Australopithecines.
I’ve got two degrees in anthropology and try to keep up with my field. I did an internet search to see if I had missed something. Hominids prior to Homo sapiens did not exhibit the behaviors that spring into being 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. They did not, indeed could not, envision shaping tools for specific purposes, e.g. shaping bone into a needle to be able to sew clothes). They did not bury their dead in a ceremonial fashion (indicative of belief in an after-life) [the Neanderthal burial in the Shanidar Cave in which they found flower pollen has been questioned and is now found to be suspect]. They did not have music (the Neanderthal “flute” has been found to match the jaw prints (punctures) of a dire wolf. They did not have art - none, nada, zippo. There are some schools that believe they did not have language as we know it.
Yes, like the gorrillas in the zoo which passed by the dead body of the old gorrilla (this is a recent story) they understood when an individual died. But this is not the same as self awareness in which one knows that one is finite.
What can be clearly recognized as modern humanity springs full bloom between 40,000 to 50,000 years ago to us - Homo sapiens not to Homo neandertalensis or Homo erectus much less the Australopithecines.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Benadam:
I think I read this article in Newsweek about the “God gene”. The article is very recent. In essence the author maintains that we are “hardwired” to believe in God - a very interesting idea from a theistic evolutionary point “God created us to know, love and serve him in this world and be happy with him in the next” Baltimore Catechism.
I think I read this article in Newsweek about the “God gene”. The article is very recent. In essence the author maintains that we are “hardwired” to believe in God - a very interesting idea from a theistic evolutionary point “God created us to know, love and serve him in this world and be happy with him in the next” Baltimore Catechism.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Everyone: Does everyone understand what a viable breeding population is? Anthropologists suggest that it would be around 200 individuals (male and female) to ensure sufficient genetic diversity to ensure continuation of the species. (That’s why there can’t be a bigfoot or a yeti). If we opt for a special creation point of view, well then God can do as he pleases although we would certainly find evidence of this and it would be spectacular to say the least. However, if we see God as having created the universe to operate under God’s operating system ( I couldn’t finish watching PBS’s program on string theory - it was beyond me)…I digress. As we make more progress into discovering how God created the cosmos and how it operates, it is more blindingly brilliant such that Einstein recognized it, Hawking recognized it and I believe Gould would have eventually realized it. Evolution is nothing more than our very clouded grasp of God’s actions in creating the cosmos and us.
E
Evan
Guest
This is one of the big difficulties with Macro Evolution. If a new species arise from a mutation, then 200 individuals would need the same mutation.
With Micro Evolution, there are too many gaps in the fossil record.
E
Evan
Guest
I don’t really have a prejudice (pre-judging) since I find your explaination a bit confusing. So what I am doing is putting it in a language I understand. I think there may be a good idea in there but I’m too confused to find it. Maybe you could spend some time tieing the ideas into the history of theological thought to see how this is a flowering of the Church’s understanding of Adam and his seed.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
brothrolf << Hominids prior to Homo sapiens did not exhibit the behaviors that spring into being 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. >>
Yeah that’s the Hugh Ross viewpoint as well, he dates Adam/Eve around that point. Glenn Morton does have a lot of documentation in his book, I haven’t read a whole lot so you may be right. He does argue the Neandertal flute was a real flute, and discusses cave art, using and building tools, burying one’s dead, primitive ritual, etc going back to all the “Homos” and “Australopithecines” several million years. Something for me to research and check up on his sources.
Phil P
Yeah that’s the Hugh Ross viewpoint as well, he dates Adam/Eve around that point. Glenn Morton does have a lot of documentation in his book, I haven’t read a whole lot so you may be right. He does argue the Neandertal flute was a real flute, and discusses cave art, using and building tools, burying one’s dead, primitive ritual, etc going back to all the “Homos” and “Australopithecines” several million years. Something for me to research and check up on his sources.
Phil P
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Evan: I am not looking to explain micro vs. macro evolution. I am trying to find a way to “explain” special creation vs. theistic evolution. I think Benadam has a pretty good point with his “Body of Adam” hypothesis. We have the same problem with Noah. If the flood was world wide and happened about (well here we’d have to really play with some numbers), then Noah and his sons and his wives would not have time to spread across the Earth (unless we accept Divine Intervention for which there is no evidence). The archaelogical evidence suggest that after the Ice Ages the sea level rose across the world. There is more evidence to support that there was a catastrophe in the Near East (i.e. the Black Sea merged with the Mediterranean) which would have given rise to the Noah story. Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh?
B
Benadam
Guest
Thank you. When you say ‘history of theological thought’ are you refering to it’s expression in the old and new testaments that was made a continuation of greek thought by Aquinas and Augustine?
Or, are you refering to the history of theological terminology. Or, am I still not getting what you mean?
E
Evan
Guest
I know. I was just pointing out that the concept of Minimum Population has a problem with either kind of darwinian evolution. For a theory, it still has lots of problems.
Yes, It’s really a good read. He must have been quite a guy
E
Evan
Guest
I think it’s more of the former. I have read some of the Church fathers and Augustine, so I kind of know how they thought about this Adam thing. But all of that was before the concept of a VERY ancient earth was proposed. Maybe I’ll search ‘First Things’ firstthings.com and see if this is being discussed. I usually understand everything in there.
I prefer to avoid phylosophies as those in the enlightenment like Shaw’s superman. That kind of thinking gets too deep for me. My wife goes Jungian sometime and othertime she talks of Phenomenology. Give me that old time religion
As I see it, you seem to be trying to find a fit for the truth as revealed by science within the Truth as revealed by God. A noble exercise, but I’ve had one beer too many (one is my limit per week) and it’s time to go home for my Chrismas holiday.
May God give peace and joy this Christmas season.
Evan
S
sires6
Guest
The problems with evolution theory go back to Darwin himself. He even said that if there was proof of more to the cell than what he could see, his theory would be disproved. And we didn’t have the science in microbiology that we do today.
Someone earlier said “stability of the universe”. Problem with that, and you can see it played out in every day lives, is that on a large scale, sure there is a “stability” of sorts, as long as you don’t peek too close. Nothing in life is stable or consistent, especially carbon. It does not break down at a stable rate nor does it show consistent values across the range. Like anything, carbon dating is only as effective as we want to believe it. Especially when the dates coincide with our own hypotheses. So, when we get a date of 25 million years, or 12, you say, “great!” and that’s that.
The evolutionist theorists like to back the dating up and up saying we must be 4 billion years old now.
The question you should ask yourself is why could the young Earth theory NOT be correct if you must believe so many things in order to believe evolution? I decided that one BEFORE I was a Christian. “The Heavens Declare the Glory of the Lord…”
I have many other things I can site and a web site you can go to: www.icr.org which has much of this information.
Oh, and also the Catholic Church (CCC) and the pope do not promote evolution nor does he deny it, that is a mistake made by the media. Here is what the Holy Father really says:
cin.org/jp2evolu.html
He says that it is a mystery, what our origins are and that these two seemingly differing opinions need to be transcended by the belief in God the Divine and God the Son… and our redemptive life in Chirst because of original sin.
annie
- What about the octopus eye? A supposedly “lesser” animal on the evolutionary scale with a more complex eye? Or the Eagle? Or … and don’t spout necessary evolutionary advances, because as a biologist, that’s hokey.
- If you look at ALL observed mutations, none are positive genetic mutations. For a mutation to be viable (benefitial to the species and the individual) it has to be positive (won’t kill the animal) or nuetral (98 percent of mutations are deadly) and it has to be something that can be passed on others. In order for something to be able to be passed on, it has to have a genetically modified mate among the population, that it mates with and then produces a viable offspring that can mate (mules). Now, you say “millions/billions” of years.
Someone earlier said “stability of the universe”. Problem with that, and you can see it played out in every day lives, is that on a large scale, sure there is a “stability” of sorts, as long as you don’t peek too close. Nothing in life is stable or consistent, especially carbon. It does not break down at a stable rate nor does it show consistent values across the range. Like anything, carbon dating is only as effective as we want to believe it. Especially when the dates coincide with our own hypotheses. So, when we get a date of 25 million years, or 12, you say, “great!” and that’s that.
The evolutionist theorists like to back the dating up and up saying we must be 4 billion years old now.
The question you should ask yourself is why could the young Earth theory NOT be correct if you must believe so many things in order to believe evolution? I decided that one BEFORE I was a Christian. “The Heavens Declare the Glory of the Lord…”
I have many other things I can site and a web site you can go to: www.icr.org which has much of this information.
Oh, and also the Catholic Church (CCC) and the pope do not promote evolution nor does he deny it, that is a mistake made by the media. Here is what the Holy Father really says:
cin.org/jp2evolu.html
He says that it is a mystery, what our origins are and that these two seemingly differing opinions need to be transcended by the belief in God the Divine and God the Son… and our redemptive life in Chirst because of original sin.
annie
O
Orogeny
Guest
What’s hokey?
Wow. When do you pick up your Nobel?
Are you saying that carbon dating is used to give dates of 25 million years?
Hmm. I thought it was geology, not biology, that came up with that dating.
Because you would have to believe so many things are NOT correct to believe in a young earth.
I decided AFTER I became a Christian (I was born a Christian)
Peace
Tim
T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
Unless God performs a miracle.
T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
Most of what you say makes sense. What always struck me as funny is when my biology professors would say that 99% of the variation between members of a species would be caused by different alleles lining up during meiosis. The prof then commented that these different alleles lining up probably caused most of the evolution to take place. I asked how that related to speciation, and the prof just stared back at me blankly–she wasn’t sure she admitted. I checked the class textbook–a 450 page beauty–it had many many pages on “natural selection”–whole chapters in fact (moths on trees, human embreos are like fish, etc…), but the book only had 1 1/2 pages dedicated to speciation. It basically stated that it is unknown genetically how speciation can occur, but it does occur since we know evolution of one species into another to be true.
:ehh:
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Tom: I believe I said in a previous post that God is perfectly capable of special creation. Shouldn’t we find scientific evidence of this special creation? All I am saying is that what we see in the archaeological, paleontological, geological etc. evidence is that God set out an ordered universe and that what we see is nothing more (or less) than the hand of God operating in His Creation. Why would a loving God plant false evidence of His Creation? Or do you subscribe to the assertion that the “scientific evidence” of Creation is Satan’s handiwork?
Have a blessed Christmas!
Have a blessed Christmas!
T
Tlaloc
Guest
Evolution is a very well supported scientific theory. The fossil record is huge and gets larger each passing year. DNA evidence has mounted. Gelogical evidence has mounted. Carbon dating evidence has mounted. And more to the point evolutionary models are used in practical applications in computer science and they actually work.
Is any of this a problem for Catholics? No, not really, unless they insist on interpreting the oldest segments of the bible as literal truths instead of ancient parables. Of course if they do that they run into lots of logical inconsistencies.
Science can never answer the question “Is there a God?” Thats outside of what science does. It can answer the question “Is the earth more than 6000 years old?” How you reconcile the answer with your faith is up to you. Denial is, of course, an option but hardly the best one.
Is any of this a problem for Catholics? No, not really, unless they insist on interpreting the oldest segments of the bible as literal truths instead of ancient parables. Of course if they do that they run into lots of logical inconsistencies.
Science can never answer the question “Is there a God?” Thats outside of what science does. It can answer the question “Is the earth more than 6000 years old?” How you reconcile the answer with your faith is up to you. Denial is, of course, an option but hardly the best one.
- Status