In Search of Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter farpinho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

farpinho

Guest
I’m back to my book search / browsing marathon…
Has anyone had a chance to read amazon.com/Search-Adam-Eve-theology-evolution/dp/1470026651/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351120245&sr=1-16&keywords=adam+eve this book?

I didn’t buy it, at least yet, but I’d appreciate if someone who had read it could give us some insight 👍. Not only the title caught my attention, but also the fact that it’s written by a Catholic Priest, and from the reviews it seems to touch the theological implications of a non-literal “Adam and Eve”, and the review seemed positive.
 
farpinho said:
I’m back to my book search / browsing marathon…
Has anyone had a chance to read amazon.com/Search-Adam-Eve-theology-evolution/dp/1470026651/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351120245&sr=1-16&keywords=adam+eve this book?

I didn’t buy it, at least yet, but I’d appreciate if someone who had read it could give us some insight 👍. Not only the title caught my attention, but also the fact that it’s written by a Catholic Priest, and from the reviews it seems to touch the theological implications of a non-literal “Adam and Eve”, and the review seemed positive.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict has written on this subject. Just google Ratzinger evolution and genesis:thumbsup:
 
farpinho said:
I’m back to my book search / browsing marathon…
Has anyone had a chance to read amazon.com/Search-Adam-Eve-theology-evolution/dp/1470026651/ref=sr_1_16?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351120245&sr=1-16&keywords=adam+eve this book?

I didn’t buy it, at least yet, but I’d appreciate if someone who had read it could give us some insight 👍. Not only the title caught my attention, but also the fact that it’s written by a Catholic Priest, and from the reviews it seems to touch the theological implications of a non-literal “Adam and Eve”, and the review seemed positive.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read this book either but recently I watch two programs on DNA Adam and DNA Eve.

youtu.be/oAXt2AUwPm0

youtu.be/MJDrCQXi0mU

These videos are not based on Genisis, though interesting all the same.
 
The last video does talk about Genesis. it does look at those who may be descendents from Adam and Eve - Salomon.
 
The one thing I’ve noticed about all of the so-called scientific explanations for A&E is that none of them ever offer a date for when A&E were supposed to have existed.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
The one thing I’ve noticed about all of the so-called scientific explanations for A&E is that none of them ever offer a date for when A&E were supposed to have existed.
Click to expand...
That is like expecting a wood building to survive as it was built 200,000 years ago. At this point through archeological discoveries they can define that …

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo
200,000 years of anatomically modern humans

Having said that, there may also older anatomically modern human that are > 200,000 yrs that may be found in the future, remembering that one can not expect a wooden building to last > 200,000 yrs. Perhaps charcoal where fires where built but not any structures.
 
triumphguy said:
Pope Benedict has written on this subject. Just google Ratzinger evolution and genesis:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
The first result directed to the website of our dear forum poster PhilVaz 👍 Added Cardinal Ratzinger’s book to my to-read list, thanks 👍
 
TheHolyTrinity said:
That is like expecting a wood building to survive as it was built 200,000 years ago. At this point through archeological discoveries they can define that …

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo
200,000 years of anatomically modern humans

Having said that, there may also older anatomically modern human that are > 200,000 yrs that may be found in the future, remembering that one can not expect a wooden building to last > 200,000 yrs. Perhaps charcoal where fires where built but not any structures.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we can consider the human race, including an immortal soul with reason and free will, to have begun 2.5 million year ago, or even 200 thousand years ago. An anatomically modern human body does not imply reason or free will.

My position is that the human race (immortal soul, reason, free will) began with modern human behavior. Human behavior indicates reason and free will, and then reason and free will indicate that the soul is immortal. Archaeologists place the start of modern human behavior about 70 to 50 thousand years ago in Africa. From that place and time, modern human spread out to the rest of the world.

So if we wish to integrate the ejection of Adam and Eve from Paradise with the current scientific understanding of ancient human history, I don’t see any other time frame that would work.
 
Ron_Conte said:
I don’t think we can consider the human race, including an immortal soul with reason and free will, to have begun 2.5 million year ago, or even 200 thousand years ago. An anatomically modern human body does not imply reason or free will.

My position is that the human race (immortal soul, reason, free will) began with modern human behavior. Human behavior indicates reason and free will, and then reason and free will indicate that the soul is immortal. Archaeologists place the start of modern human behavior about 70 to 50 thousand years ago in Africa. From that place and time, modern human spread out to the rest of the world.

So if we wish to integrate the ejection of Adam and Eve from Paradise with the current scientific understanding of ancient human history, I don’t see any other time frame that would work.
Click to expand...
To be honest wasn’t thinking of immortal soul and free will etc when writing. I was more thinking the very little genetic diversity that humans have compared to other species.

I agree that modern human behavior developed some 70 - 50 thousand years ago. Archeologists have found symbolism (sending messages to each other and art and creativity) - shell beads for body adornment - up to 100 thousand years ago. I do believe that in order to survive this long that their modern human behavior would need to be in existence to survive - with out it we would be extinct.

Further more the genetic bottle neck of 50 - 100 thousand years ago threatened our survival. Even worse a cataclysmic eruption 75 thousand years ago, Lake Toba which threatened all living creatures. First from the eruption it self and then from the acid cloud (2 billion tons of ash) that engulfed the earth. Global six year volcanic winter - greater than 30 Celsius cooling. Plant growth slowed. It was thought that with only a few thousand people who survived that they built up support networks to survive much like modern man.

Archeological evidence alone, does not show evolution of modern man. One almost needs to travel back in time to observe how modern man interacted socially - bone fragments and artifacts only gives a small proportion of the story.
 
Speaking of books…

The book Science & Human Origins ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-04-2 (paperback) has two interesting chapters by molecular biologist Ann Gauger. In the book’s last chapter, she reviews current challenges to Francisco J. Ayala’s bold claim that a narrow population bottleneck of one or very few couples could not have occurred in human ancestral history.
 
Understand what the Church teaches.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction.”

Why was Jesus born? Original Sin. That is why He had to die as a sacrifice for many so that sins may be forgiven.

Peace,
Ed
 
grannymh said:
Speaking of books…

The book Science & Human Origins ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-04-2 (paperback) has two interesting chapters by molecular biologist Ann Gauger. In the book’s last chapter, she reviews current challenges to Francisco J. Ayala’s bold claim that a narrow population bottleneck of one or very few couples could not have occurred in human ancestral history.
Click to expand...
I’ve read a couple of reviews of her book and one consistent criticism of her work is that she fails to address other studies using different methods which support Ayala’s conclusion.

Also, previously in this thread I noted:

*The one thing I’ve noticed about all of the so-called scientific explanations for A&E is that none of them ever offer a date for when A&E were supposed to have existed. *

In response to that very question posed to Ann Gauger in the comment section here, Gauber writes in comment #9:

I personally accept an old earth, but I don’t know when or where to place those first two parents. Not being dodgy, there are just too many unknowns. I do not know when to place true sapience, and our present DNA certainly can’t tell us. Casey Luskin does a good job on the fossil record in the book. But choosing when we first appeared on the planet all depends on what criteria you choose to define “human”.

So here’s someone else – this time a scientist – who supports the possibility of just two first progenitors and yet still claims not to have any idea when that might have occurred. IMO, it’s not because there are too many unknowns – it’s because it’s the only way that her claim can remain unfalsifiable.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
I’ve read a couple of reviews of her book and one consistent criticism of her work is that she fails to address other studies using different methods which support Ayala’s conclusion.
Click to expand...
The important basic natural science question is – In an individual research project,(“The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins”, Science 1995) can the evidence, which is based on both provided material **and **proper method warrant both the actual specific conclusion **and **an extrapolation to an **universal **conclusion?

That question applies to all fields of natural science because the Induction method is normal in the material/physical domain of natural science.

Francisco J. Ayala’s individual interpretations flowing from his particular conclusion based on a specific gene and its alleles (out of 20,000 to 25,000 human genes) is the landmark interpretation which supposedly stopped the search for Adam and Eve.

“Now that DNA sequencing has become relatively simple and cheap, researchers are gathering vast amounts of human sequence data.” (Science & Human Origins, page 105) “Vast” is an understatement considering that there are three billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA.
Source: ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

Reviewers of the book can prefer other published research papers if they so wish.

Readers who are interested in the landmark research paper offering an interpretation of our origin should read what Ann Gauger has to offer in Chapters one and five.

In my humble opinion, the 1995 hoopla was premature. The possibility of two sole founders of humankind is alive and well.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
I personally accept an old earth, but I don’t know when or where to place those first two parents. Not being dodgy, there are just too many unknowns. I do not know when to place true sapience, and our present DNA certainly can’t tell us. Casey Luskin does a good job on the fossil record in the book. But choosing when we first appeared on the planet all depends on what criteria you choose to define “human”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
cornbread_r2 said:
I’ve read a couple of reviews of her book and one consistent criticism of her work is that she fails to address other studies using different methods which support Ayala’s conclusion.
Click to expand...
As a follow-up to posts 13 and 14.

On page 113 of Science & Human Origins, Ann Gauger does indeed address a 1998 study which does use a different method to come up with a conclusion similar to Francisco Ayala’s conclusion that some HLA-DRB1 alleles existed in the dark recesses of time going millions of years backwards. The dramatic difference in number of alleles between the two studies signals that the current basic “assumptions” used in natural science need analyzing. The reality of natural science is that a researcher can say that something is improbable, but the researcher cannot say dogmatically that it is impossible.

What is appealing about Ann’s chapters one and five is that she is sincerely concerned about the reader and does her best to provide a clear statement of her major points in non-technical language. Diagrams are used.

Because the Catholic Church understands the difference between the domain of scientists and the domain of God, it, alone, can declare dogmatically that Adam and Eve exist. 😃
 
Correction to post 16. Post 16 is a follow-up to posts 13, 14, and 15. My apology for the error.
 
Adam and Eve are defined as our first parents. The parents of all. There were no others.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Adam and Eve are defined as our first parents. The parents of all. There were no others.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I’ve always wondered about this, but for some reason never asked- but did God create others that the sons of Adam and Eve would have continued the human race with? Or did Adam and Eve have daughters that their sons procreated with? I shudder to think that God would have it that way.
 
and on and on ad infinitum whilst rejecting that the world is only a few thousand years old - in this wise see my scripture topic under why,why,why - wincam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top