Many Adams and Eves?

[edwest2]

Ok… we’ve seen you give the quote from 1880, we get it. As respectfully as possible, we don’t need to see it again.

I did not know you spoke for all the other ‘we’ here. Respectfully, the just say yes to evolution crowd posts their mantra here constantly, without signs of slowing down the repetition.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Stated this way it is a contradiction. That’s why many of us read the Genesis stories symbolically rather than literally.

Sounds like one is giving in to the hype. Sorry. I keep dreaming about hundreds and hundreds of scientists marching into my bedroom ready to haul me off to the netherworld.

Seriously,
what can you possibly get out of a symbolic Adam which would be related to true Catholicism?

 

[jcrichton]

awatkins69;6566723:

Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans, but a small group of humans with the population at lowest being 1000. Offiial Church teaching contradicts this, and says that the faithful must accept that we are descended from a literal Adam and Eve. Is this a contradiction between faith and reason?

Stated this way it is a contradiction. That’s why many of us read the Genesis stories symbolically rather than literally.

Did you mean because “scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans…” or did you mean because the Church understand that there’s both literal and nonliteral language employed in the Sacred Scriptures?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[NHInsider]

I did not know you spoke for all the other ‘we’ here. Respectfully, the just say yes to evolution crowd posts their mantra here constantly, without signs of slowing down the repetition.

Ed - I don’t care one whit whether you or anyone else believe in evolution - it has no bearing whatsoever on the salvation of souls. I do care - passionately - when people insist that the Church teaches something which it does not teach, and posit that their interpretation of magesterial documents from previous centuries trumps the explicit statements of the more recent and current magesterium. Because the authority of the Church to teach DOES have bearing on the salvation of souls. That’s the issue, as far as I am concerned. Your attempt to reduce the citations from assorted documents including a Dogmatic Constitution and statements of the previous and present Popes to “the mantra of the just say yes to evolution crowd” is a plain assertion of the authority of your interpretation/position against the authority of the Church; and that’s just not ok.

 

[StAnastasia]

Did you mean because “scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans…” or did you mean because the Church understand that there’s both literal and nonliteral language employed in the Sacred Scriptures?
Angel

Both.

 

[grannymh]

Here is an example of unfair exaggeration meant to block honest questions and intimidate readers.

“Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans.”
This obviously unreasonable extrapolation of limited research
is based on the assumption that science in general
is able
to predict backwards
with accuracy
exactly what was taking place daily
all over the earth
for periods of time ranging up to millions of years.

 

[StAnastasia]

Here is an example of unfair exaggeration meant to block honest questions and intimidate readers.

“Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that all humans did not descend from just one pair of humans.”

Granny, you’ve got to work hard to find a geneticist who will support your theory about Adam and Eve.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ed - I don’t care one whit whether you or anyone else believe in evolution - it has no bearing whatsoever on the salvation of souls.

For the record, I don’t believe in evolution. I believe in God, and in the saving life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ.

I accept evolution as the best explanation for the evidence terrestrial biodiversity, just as I accept gravity as the best explanation for why things fall down.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Granny, you’ve got to work hard to find a geneticist who will support your theory about Adam and Eve.

Actually, the statement that Adam and Eve are real people is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do you really believe that Catholicism which was founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity [God] depends on support from a geneticist?

 

[StAnastasia]

Actually, the statement that Adam and Eve are real people is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do you really believe that Catholicism which was founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity [God] depends on support from a geneticist?

Of course not. But I suspect God would not plan on going head to head with a geneticist thousands of years later!

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Actually, the statement that Adam and Eve are real people is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do you really believe that Catholicism which was founded by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity [God] depends on support from a geneticist?*

Of course not. But I suspect God would not plan on going head to head with a geneticist thousands of years later!

God is still going head to head with me.:blackeye:

 

[edwest2]

Ed - I don’t care one whit whether you or anyone else believe in evolution - it has no bearing whatsoever on the salvation of souls. I do care - passionately - when people insist that the Church teaches something which it does not teach, and posit that their interpretation of magesterial documents from previous centuries trumps the explicit statements of the more recent and current magesterium. Because the authority of the Church to teach DOES have bearing on the salvation of souls. That’s the issue, as far as I am concerned. Your attempt to reduce the citations from assorted documents including a Dogmatic Constitution and statements of the previous and present Popes to “the mantra of the just say yes to evolution crowd” is a plain assertion of the authority of your interpretation/position against the authority of the Church; and that’s just not ok.

I’ve done no such thing. Look at the recent nonsense about the Exodus account. The Old Testament is part of the Bible. Some scientists woke up one day, and said “nope, never happened.” If you wish to ignore the constant attempts here to reduce this or that part of the Bible to myth or legend because someone who thinks they know something about science said so, I won’t stop you.

What Dogmatic Constitution? Have you read Communion and Stewardship?

I’m sure there are other people who don’t care one whit what I think, so I’m amazed that you’ve decided to invest my comments with such authority.

God bless,
Ed

 

[jcrichton]

Both.

But shouldn’t it “scientific theory” or is “evidence” no longer quantified by actual facts?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

For the record, I don’t believe in evolution. I believe in God, and in the saving life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ.

I accept evolution as the best explanation for the evidence terrestrial biodiversity, just as I accept gravity as the best explanation for why things fall down.

StAnastasia

Have you checked the site that claims that a large number of Scientist are opposed to the evolution theory (the link is found a few post above on this thread)?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Of course not. But I suspect God would not plan on going head to head with a geneticist thousands of years later!

…but isn’t if the other way around, the geneticist going head to head with Yahweh God?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Of course not. But I suspect God would not plan on going head to head with a geneticist thousands of years later!

…but isn’t it the other way around, the geneticist going head to head with Yahweh God?.. just study the quote you use as your signature… is it not more intellegible to state that because there is but One Creator of the whole Universe, both the seen and unseen, everything works and exists in the scheme in which it was created? Science has discover wonderful things about our anotomy yet it attributes what we are to a myriad of chances taking place during eons of time and which are impregnated by a myriad of *just so *conditions which spins a single-cell micro organism which, in spite of lacking cognizance, determines the intricacies of the various micro and macro ecosystems in which all life known to us exists… yes, theology demands that we act in Faith; but science, as it requires that we accept as fact everything that it cannot demonstrate and everything that it theorizes as plausible, operates on faith–it’s that old hollowood philosophy that attempts to remove God from existence by promoting the theme “believe in yourself,” pure religion disguised as as modern intellectualism!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[sulkow82]

What Dogmatic Constitution?

There is this citation:

As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, **can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason **(see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race.(Dei Verbum Chap 1 Par 6b, emphasis mine).

In light of this passage, it is not seeing evolution as some random thing which happened. When we see evolution as a testament to God, we are given more evidence of His existence. God and evolution stop being in conflict with each other. Rather, God is the architect of evolution.

sulkow82 SFO

 

[StAnastasia]

Have you checked the site that claims that a large number of Scientist are opposed to the evolution theory (the link is found a few post above on this thread)?Angel

I know that list well. It was put together by a creationists group. It has zero influence on science, and no influence that I know of on theology.

 

[edwest2]

I know that list well. It was put together by a creationists group. It has zero influence on science, and no influence that I know of on theology.

A perfect example of double-speak. Just act as if the list doesn’t exist. Or matters.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

…but isn’t it the other way around, the geneticist going head to head with Yahweh God?.. just study the quote you use as your signature… is it not more intellegible to state that because there is but One Creator of the whole Universe, both the seen and unseen, everything works and exists in the scheme in which it was created? Science has discover wonderful things about our anotomy yet it attributes what we are to a myriad of chances taking place during eons of time and which are impregnated by a myriad of *just so *conditions which spins a single-cell micro organism which, in spite of lacking cognizance, determines the intricacies of the various micro and macro ecosystems in which all life known to us exists… yes, theology demands that we act in Faith; but science, as it requires that we accept as fact everything that it cannot demonstrate and everything that it theorizes as plausible, operates on faith–it’s that old hollowood philosophy that attempts to remove God from existence by promoting the theme “believe in yourself,” pure religion disguised as as modern intellectualism! Maran atha!Angel

Sorry, but I don’t understand what you are arguing in this post. Science seeks plausible explanations for facts. Biologists – including Catholic biologists – accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for biological diversity on earth.