Many Adams and Eves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not at all, your education is your education. But no matter how you slice the loaf of bread. It still gets back to realizing what is a Theory. What is a “fringe theory”. And on and on.

I have a very different background and education that you so I see things much more in Black and White. And not in “fringe theory”.

For example: It was first thought that because the Nucleus of a Atom is made up of Neutrons and Electrons. That the only reason they did not repell [since they have the same charge] is because of the “First Theory” asserted that the force of gravity held the Nucleus together. However is was “known” years later that “gravity” could not hold the Nucleus together because of Coulombs Law. So what was “thought” to be a Valid “theory”. Was “PROVEN” to be incorrect. By 47 Yukawa identified a subatomic particle that acts as a mediator to “hold” the Nucleus together. The particle is a quark known as a “gluon”.

Thus we have what is the basis of a Theory. Its a educated guess, which is based on certain, specific known truths. We know today that much of Evolution is “TRUE”. It would be a fools argument to say the entire “Theory of Evolutuion” is incorrect. In the past century we have come to believe many truths about this Theory. yet there are some aspects of the Theory which are simply not proven. Their is NO DATA to “prove” man evolved from a Chimp. Thats dead in the Water. WE now “know” that is “not” true. Because of Arcitectual discoveries. Thus ‘Now’ you start to see what I am getting at. The entire concept in NOT proven.

Untill just recently we 100% believed that Newtons Theory of Gravity was “law”. We “now” know that this is NOT true and in “fact” Albert Einstien was correct in his assertion of the "Theory of Gravity. Newtons "Theory of Gravity’ also held water for “over a Century”. Thats now Dead in the Water. Though certain aspects of what are Newtons Laws are “true”.

Do you sort of understand what I am getting at now? Because all of us Catholics believe in Adam and Eve. That also doesn’t make us foolish. We understand “fact”. I suppose it would politically correct for me to say] "I know that specific aspects of Evolution are “true”. This doesn’t take way from the “fact” That we still have Human beings to date in time and figure out where they came from? “GOD…Adam and Eve”👍

So is aspect, we are dealing with Theory and “fringe theory” Some fact some fiction and some unknown. This leaves the door “wide open” for a continued debate. Which is fine. As long as all debating can do so “objectively”

As time ticks away, we also are coming closer to a “Full Understanding” of Faith. There are now certain facts which we now know, no longer need be debated in the Catholic Faith . Its not a question anymore of “Blind Faith”. There are so many Truth to the facts of the Faith. Again through science that are just ringing true now. Its sort of also gets to be that if 99.9 % is true, why would not believe the rest?

So what I see it two totally different reality coming closer and closer together. Not father and farther apart as first though. 👍 Anyway I’m not going to try to graduate this. Good Luck with this all.

Please Excuse my typing. I did not have my correct on here. Im sure its a MESS:thumbsup:

God Bless.
 
How could SIN enter a perfect world? Is there SIN in heaven? God is omniscient. He knew what would happen. He knows everything.

In a perfect world would man rebel against His creator?

What God created was GOOD. Heaven is PERFECT. Satan could not have gone into heaven, disguised as a snake or a serpent or whatever. You can’t have sin in a perfect place. Yet Adam sinned.

So how do you reconcile this?
Freedom and love go hand in hand and from God’s love came Adam. Adam was created free to do what he wanted but had a “commandment” and if he broke that commandment there was a price to pay. Whilst Adam was sinless, from the wound in his side came his perfect bride (sound familiar). Both were free. We are still free to do what we want, sin is rejection of God’s word and relationship.

The Creation was originally ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), so the ‘last enemy’, death (1 Corinthians 15:26) was not there. Even the animals were originally all given plants to eat (Genesis 1:30). The willful disobedience of the first Adam brought a reign of death and bloodshed upon a once-perfect world, which ever since has been groaning in pain (Romans 8:22). Precisely because of the blood shed in death by the last Adam, Jesus, this curse of death and bloodshed will be removed, and creation restored to a sinless, deathless state (Revelation 21:1; 21:4; 22:3).

We are all connected with the first Adam (the natural and legal head of the human race) as depraved and guilty sinners, and so are included in the sentence of death which God pronounced on him. However, all who are connected with the last Adam, Jesus, through repentance and faith in His redeeming work, are forgiven, have ‘received the free gift of righteousness’, and so ‘have passed from death to life’ (Colossians 1:14; Romans 5:17; 1 John 3:14).
 
Animals have been eating each other at least since the Cambrian Era (540 million to 490 million years ago). Many dinosaurs were carnivores, not herbivores. There has been suffering as long as there have been central nervous systems to experience the rending of flesh.
There would have been pain in the sin free creation but not suffering. All animals could have eaten plants, even TRex but many turned on each other after the Fall. When the Creation is restored the Lion and the lamb will lay next to each other, just as they did in the beginning.
 
How could SIN enter a perfect world? Is there SIN in heaven? God is omniscient. He knew what would happen. He knows everything.

In a perfect world would man rebel against His creator?
Absolutely.
What God created was GOOD. Heaven is PERFECT. Satan could not have gone into heaven, disguised as a snake or a serpent or whatever. You can’t have sin in a perfect place. Yet Adam sinned.

So how do you reconcile this?
One uses the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
 
LittleSoldier, “theistic evolution” cannot be doctrine, any more than “theistic gravity” could be doctrine. Gravity and evolution are scientific theories, and always will be scientific theories. Evolution cannot be “doctrine” any more than gravity can, or the speed of light, or plate tectonics.

StAnastasia
True.

The actual Catholic doctrine is that Adam and Eve are real people with the same human nature that we have. In addition, the real Adam and Eve are the real sole parents of the real human species.
 
Even the animals were originally all given plants to eat (Genesis 1:30). The willful disobedience of the first Adam brought a reign of death and bloodshed upon a once-perfect world, which ever since has been groaning in pain (Romans 8:22).
What was the chemical process triggered by Adam’s eating of the apple that changed carnivores’ stomachs to be able to digest meat?
 
True.The actual Catholic doctrine is that Adam and Eve are real people with the same human nature that we have. In addition, the real Adam and Eve are the real sole parents of the real human species.
And that’s a theological theory, not a scientific one.
 
And that’s a theological theory, not a scientific one.
So in the case of a conflict, which one wins?

Late edit: I thought that the comparison was between a Catholic dogma, and a scientific theory. That’s what my question above refers to.
 
Both can be true, even though they say opposite things.
Really? How so? So far, the Church is saying we can’t take all those generations into a lab to know one way or the other. However, the Church is also saying that the answer to the ontological leap to man cannot be found within science.

I think Catholics should realize that we have true knowledge given to us by God that we could not otherwise get via our own senses and experiences.

God bless,
Ed
 
Really? How so?
Ed, do you believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Chemically bread and wine are bread and wine both before and after consecration; chemically it does not become human flesh and blood. Theologically, however, the eucharistic elements become the flesh and blood of Christ. Chemistry and theology coexist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top