if not evolution....

[buffalo]

Homo erectus migrated out of Africa, but that doesn’t imply that all homo sapiens or modern humans evolved from these species. Another species or small group, much more like modern humans and neanderthals, evolved and then remigrated over those previously inhabited areas.

Finds test human origins theory

Two hominid fossils discovered in Kenya are challenging a long-held view of human evolution.

 

[grannymh]

Homo erectus migrated out of Africa, but that doesn’t imply that all homo sapiens or modern humans evolved from these species. Another species or small group, much more like modern humans and neanderthals, evolved and then remigrated over those previously inhabited areas.

“Another species or small group” sounds like a possible preparation for two sole founders of the human species. The human species has the intelligence to quickly and successfully migrate and reproduced.

 

[lemondiesel]

Finds test human origins theory

Two hominid fossils discovered in Kenya are challenging a long-held view of human evolution.

How is this challenging human evolution?

Alternating our understanding, sure.

 

[lemondiesel]

“Another species or small group” sounds like a possible preparation for two sole founders of the human species. The human species has the intelligence to quickly and successfully migrate and reproduced.

But there has to be a species which would allow for rapid intelligent growth and be able to adapt to new environments. “Two sole founders” is exactly what I’m advocating. These founders separated themselves by the use of conscious morals.

 

[karaleigh]

Not “totally literal” does not help this discussion. This area of theology has been plagued by such ambiguity for too long. I would ask you to specify what is literal (I am assuming literal=true) and what is figurative, but do not bother because Pope St. Pius X already took care of that in the PBC Replies on Genesis, which is a binding magisterial document.

And Catholics always took Genesis literally, which is why we believe in Original Sin as formulated by Trent. Protestantism, born of Rationalism, started casting doubt on a literal interpretation of the Bible, telling us that Genesis was not written by Moses (Documentary Hypoth.) and that the Eucharist is not literally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Diviinity of Christ.

Not to knock seminaries, but university studies will much better prepare a person for the understanding to the origins of the bible’s literal interpretation. Without the ancient biblical histories in ancient civilizations the bible can become difficult to follow along with. I feel Catholic schools are much better for students who need to be prepared for a life career in social work religious organizations. Just my thought.

I also understood the Eucharist to be the manifestation of Body, Blood, Soul; and, literally the Divinity of Jesus Christ. You sound different from that…is that true.

 

[grannymh]

But there has to be a species which would allow for rapid intelligent growth and be able to adapt to new environments. “Two sole founders” is exactly what I’m advocating. These founders separated themselves by the use of conscious morals.

At the first moment of Adam’s existence, his nature was in harmony. This means that he had a fully operative intellect and will which was in harmony with an anatomy that did not have to suffer and die. This nature existed as long as Adam lived in free submssion to his Creator. Adam, as the created one, was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

The Fall describes Adam’s choice to scorn his Creator and break the bonds of friendship by his very serious original sin. As a result, Adam’s human nature (and that of his future descendants) was wounded, not destroyed. He was still intellectually superior to archaic beings. He still had the ability to make choices based on reasoning and analytic thought in order to adapt to new and often difficult environments. His situation would be similar to a family shipwrecked on a primitive island.

Adam did not lose his knowledge of God. He had been promised that there would be a Messiah who would reconcile humanity with God. Hope often provides extra physical strength to overcome adversity. Focusing on winning will energize a basketball team who is behind.

That “which would allow for rapid intelligent growth and be able to adapt to new environments” was already a part of Adam’s wounded nature. Obviously, Adam could not go straight from the Garden to Google. Being intelligent does not mean that one knows all things immediately. Being intelligent is the ability to grow in knowledge, to continually learn and thus add new knowledge. Obviously, human nature also has the ability to refuse knowledge and make decisions which are not beneficial. This happens when a person chooses a lesser good.

As for separating themselves from a non-human population, Adam and Eve could have done this in a number of plausible ways. Adam, Eve, their children, their children’s children and so on had both the mental and physical capacity to separate when they chose to do so.

 

[lemondiesel]

At the first moment of Adam’s existence, his nature was in harmony. This means that he had a fully operative intellect and will which was in harmony with an anatomy that did not have to suffer and die.

Adam would have never known of such concepts like suffering and dying until he experienced them or was taught them. Perhaps the recognition of self decay, or the decay of Eve?

This nature existed as long as Adam lived in free submssion to his Creator. Adam, as the created one, was subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

You are assuming Adam already had previous knowledge of a Creator. The state of nature does not exist the moment human beings came to be. We were no longer part of the water flowing in a river downstream; we became a rock, in which we believe we are separate from the water…but yet we are still subject to its effects.

The Fall describes Adam’s choice to scorn his Creator and break the bonds of friendship by his very serious original sin. As a result, Adam’s human nature (and that of his future descendants) was wounded, not destroyed. He was still intellectually superior to archaic beings. He still had the ability to make choices based on reasoning and analytic thought in order to adapt to new and often difficult environments. His situation would be similar to a family shipwrecked on a primitive island.

What was this friendship? Perhaps becoming enlightened, in which we transcend concepts of good and evil will bring us closer.

Adam did not lose his knowledge of God. He had been promised that there would be a Messiah who would reconcile humanity with God.

This seems more to be enlightenment, rather than sin and repent.

Obviously, human nature also has the ability to refuse knowledge and make decisions which are not beneficial. This happens when a person chooses a lesser good.

That is because reality is composed of two parts; the stuff “I” experiences and everything else. It is natural for us to refuse that which we do not understand.

As for separating themselves from a non-human population, Adam and Eve could have done this in a number of plausible ways. Adam, Eve, their children, their children’s children and so on had both the mental and physical capacity to separate when they chose to do so.

Assuming that these generations were influenced and educated enough to realize they could.

 

[grannymh]

Adam would have never known of such concepts like suffering and dying until he experienced them or was taught them. Perhaps the recognition of self decay, or the decay of Eve?

Adam had full knowledge of what was necessary to share in God’s life. Friendship is this sharing in God’s life through knowledge and love. Preferring himself over and above God would deny the friendship and lead to the opposite of life which would be death. I cannot say that Adam knew all the details of a decaying anatomy, but he did understand that there would be dire consequences of disobedience.

You are assuming Adam already had previous knowledge of a Creator. The state of nature does not exist the moment human beings came to be.

Yes, Adam, from the beginning had knowledge of his Creator. The state of human nature exists from the moment a human person comes into being. This is why abortion takes a human life.

We were no longer part of the water flowing in a river downstream; we became a rock, in which we believe we are separate from the water…but yet we are still subject to its effects.

It is only our material anatomy which may have existed as part of the water flowing in a river downstream. It is because of our spiritual soul that matter becomes a human person. And yes, our anatomy is still subject to effects of its development, both good and bad.

What was this friendship? Perhaps becoming enlightened, in which we transcend concepts of good and evil will bring us closer.

I am not sure that Adam would transcend concepts of good and evil. I am sure that he was enlightened about good and evil. From reading some of the symbolism in the first three chapters of Genesis, it is obvious to me that God and Adam and Eve had a very good relationship, one in which they could freely discuss good and evil.

Friendship is a word from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. It is found in paragraph 396 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/396.htm

However, human nature and the relationship with God start at paragraph 355
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

I like using the word friendship because it is a common word which people understand as involving responsibilities if the friendship is to prosper. Nonetheless, it could use a lot more explaining. So please ask questions and/or express your ideas.

This seems more to be enlightenment, rather than sin and repent.

Yes. Knowledge of God and the promise of a Messiah Who would restore the “friendship” is enlightenment. The reality of life is that there are both enlightenment and the need to repent for one’s personal sins.

That is because reality is composed of two parts; the stuff “I” experiences and everything else. It is natural for us to refuse that which we do not understand.

That is true. However, one has to factor in that a person has free will so that one can refuse what we do understand. Adam understood the limits of being a creature; yet, he went against this knowledge and chose to prefer himself over God. He chose to go against the requirements of his status as a creature. Obviously, his act was against his own good.

Assuming that these generations were influenced and educated enough to realize they could.

It is a valid assumption for the beginning generations because of the need to band together in order to survive. Thus, they learned from Adam and Eve as parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. Like any family, there were children who left to do things on their own. We know from verbal traditions across the earth, that not everyone kept the teachings of Adam and Eve. The interesting thing to me is that the various ancient cultures all had an inherent sense of the supernatural or spiritual

Please note that I understand that it can be hard to follow Catholic teachings because of the way vocabulary is used. It is hard to understand human nature as being an unique unification of both the material *and *spiritual worlds.

I believe that Catholic teachings about human origin and human nature are valid because it is our species which survived.

Please do not hesitate to ask questions so that we can explore the life of Adam and Eve. When I discuss Adam and Eve, I learn something new.

 

[karaleigh]

Never seen my aura in my X-rays.
Soul id spiritual so by definition, unseens.

May well be that the X-ray script request wasn’t for the purpose to study your bio-rhythms and aura. Well here in James 1: 21, the soul is something that has to be be cared after,* “Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls”.* Perhaps the soul, by definition is spiritual in nature, yet it’s still a functioning mediator between good and evil. And, the Written Word is the soul’s salvation…making the soul somewhat more then just merely spiritual.
uch:

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

May well be that the X-ray script request wasn’t for the purpose to study your bio-rhythms and aura. Well here in James 1: 21, the soul is something that has to be be cared after,* “Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls”.* Perhaps the soul, by definition is spiritual in nature, yet it’s still a functioning mediator between good and evil. And, the Written Word is the soul’s salvation…making the soul somewhat more then just merely spiritual.
uch:

The Soul is spiritual and never shows in any medical analysis. A famous surgeons said: “never saw in soul on the tip of my bisturi”
Let us not confuse soul with the qualities of matter. After death you will go to Jupiter in 1 second and will learn all the books of the world in the following second…

 

[LittleSoldier]

Is everyone aware that evolution is a banned topic? It doesn’t seem to matter that it’s banned as it seems to be discussed all the time.

I don’t know if I should post or if I will receive an infraction for doing so.