Many Adams and Eves?

[edwest2]

That was a very simplistic reply and ignores the supposed great changes in earth’s atmospheric chemistry, and the ocean’s chemistry. I suggest you get a copy of Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s not correct to say that the theory of evolution requires everything to change over time. It simply states that, over time, the species that are best adapted to their environments and reproduce (bountifully) are the most likely to survive for long periods of time.

An excellent reply, fnr! Don’t waste your time on Signature in the Cell. It hasn’t been reviewed in any scientific journal or science magazine as far as I know; few creo books ever are. Johnson’s *Darwin on Trial *and Wells’s Icons of Evolution are two notable exceptions.

Darrell Falk says at the BioLogos blog, “To my knowledge the only public appraisal of this book by a biologist who holds a faculty position at a secular research university is that of Dr. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine. It was not favorable. There were several reviews by biologists at Christian colleges, but each of these also spoke of the quality of its science in highly unfavorable terms.”

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

An excellent reply, fnr! Don’t waste your time on Signature in the Cell. It hasn’t been reviewed in any scientific journal or science magazine as far as I know; few creo books ever are. Johnson’s *Darwin on Trial *and Wells’s Icons of Evolution are two notable exceptions.

Darrell Falk says at the BioLogos blog, “To my knowledge the only public appraisal of this book by a biologist who holds a faculty position at a secular research university is that of Dr. Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine. It was not favorable. There were several reviews by biologists at Christian colleges, but each of these also spoke of the quality of its science in highly unfavorable terms.”

StAnastasia

Perhaps you can refute the major points.

Here is the response to Ayala:

He didn’t even read it yet reviewed it. Big surprise his review was negative.

**On Not Reading Signature in the Cell: A Response to Francisco Ayala

**

 

[grannymh]

An excellent reply, fnr! Don’t waste your time on Signature in the Cell. It hasn’t been reviewed in any scientific journal or science magazine as far as I know;StAnastasia

I don’t believe that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,
has been reviewed in any recent scientific journal or science magazine. Am I correct?

In any case, when one wants to know the truth about the real Adam and Eve, one should check out the following.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and the number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Entering topics such as Adam, etc., is also very useful.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means – basic instructions before leaving earth

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t believe that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,
has been reviewed in any recent scientific journal or science magazine. Am I correct?

I can’t imagine it would be.

 

[grannymh]

I can’t imagine it would be.

So, you can’t imagine that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, translated into a variety of languages, has ever being reviewed in any recent scientific journal or science magazine. Yet, millions of people all over the globe use it.
Apparently, Catholicism has something very important to say about
the reality of Adam and Eve.

 

[StAnastasia]

So, you can’t imagine that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, translated into a variety of languages, has ever being reviewed in any recent scientific journal or science magazine. Yet, millions of people all over the globe use it.
Apparently, Catholicism has something very important to say about
the reality of Adam and Eve.

Science journals tend not to review theological works. The Catechism is a theological rather than a scientific work. Hence, science journals would be unlikely to review it. Of course, you could check with the book review policy of such publications as Nature and Science to get the official word on this topic.

 

[diggerdomer]

From newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm

More important is the theological doctrine formulated by St. Paul in Romans 5:12-21, and in 1 Corinthians 15:22-45. In the latter passage Jesus Christ is called by analogy and contrast the new or “last Adam.” This is understood in the sense that as the original Adam was the head of all mankind, the father of all according to the flesh, so also Jesus Christ was constituted chief and head of the spiritual family of the elect, and potentially of all mankind, since all are invited to partake of His salvation.** Thus the first Adam is a type of the second**, but while the former transmits to his progeny a legacy of death, the latter, on the contrary, becomes the vivifying principle of restored righteousness. Christ is the “last Adam” inasmuch as “there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); no other chief or father of the race is to be expected. Both the first and the second Adam occupy the position of head with regard to humanity, but whereas the first through his disobedience vitiated, as it were, in himself the stirps of the entire race, and left to his posterity an inheritance of death, sin, and misery, the other through his obedience merits for all those who become his members a new life of holiness and an everlasting reward.** It may be said that the contrast thus formulated expresses a fundamental tenet of the Christian religion and embodies in a nutshell the entire doctrine of the economy of salvation**

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a great resource. I’d encourage you to check the current edition (2003) in addition to the one you cite from a century ago. The current edition includes this under “Adam”:

The name given in the genealogical lists of Gn 4.25–5.5 to the first human being, identical in form with the Hebrew word for man, 'ādām. He is named simply Man, not merely because he was the first man, but rather because he was regarded as the type of all mankind (Gn 5.2). However, in the story of PARADISE and the Fall of Man in Gn 2.4b–3.24 the term is always preceded by the definite article in Hebrew, hā-’ādām, “the man,” and therefore in this section it should not be translated as if it were a proper noun. The Hebrew word 'ādām means man in the sense of “mankind”; to designate an individual man, Hebrew must use the term ben ’ādām, son, i.e., member, of the human race. This fact is of some importance in the interpretation of the story of the fall of man, in which the inspired author is speaking not so much about an individual man as about the whole human race typified by this individual.

and

Paul draws an important contrast between “the first, the old, the earthly Adam” of Genesis and “the second, the new, the heavenly Adam” who is Christ; the former is the “figure” (τύπος) of the latter (Rom 5.14).

Thanks again for the great citation from the previous edition of the Encyclopedia, it’s really interesting to see how teaching develops.

 

[redneck22]

Thanks again for the great citation from the previous edition of the Encyclopedia, it’s really interesting to see how teaching develops.

So can I take that as a “yes” to there being a man called Adam, that actually existed walked around etc and that all humans descended from him? or do you believe he is an allegory/metaphor/myth etc.

 

[diggerdomer]

So can I take that as a “yes” to there being a man called Adam, that actually existed walked around etc and that all humans descended from him? or do you believe he is an allegory/metaphor/myth etc.

I believe what the Church teaches. I agree with what the Catholic Encyclopedia reference I quoted says.

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

I tend to think that there were two distinct races created separately in the beginning and that many so called races are really just hybrids of varying degree between these two original races.

 

[russell007]

Perhaps you can refute the major points.

Here is the response to Ayala:

He didn’t even read it yet reviewed it. Big surprise his review was negative.

On Not Reading Signature in the Cell: A Response to Francisco Ayala

I took The FTCM (Galveston-Houston, FTCM provides authentic Catholic teachings taught by approved instructors with Masters or Doctoral degrees in theological disciplines)

I refuse to finish the course they teach Moses leading the people out of Egypt was more of a story than actual events. Same with Adam & Eve It was more of trying to combine science and Catholosism I told the people around me how long until they say Jesus was just a story.

 

[grannymh]

About Adam.

The Catholic Encyclopedia reference.

A reference is somebody’s reference.

Who somebody?

Certainly anybody can agree with somebody.

When the rubber hits the road, Catholic teaching is that there are two real people, who existed historically, who were in real friendship with their Creator Who was truly the real God. Catholic teaching is that these two real people had real, fully complete human natures. Human nature is the real unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, real spiritual soul and real material body. Furthermore, these real two people became the first, sole, true parents of the real human species.

Am I clear about reality?

 

[StAnastasia]

I tend to think that there were two distinct races created separately in the beginning and that many so called races are really just hybrids of varying degree between these two original races.

Hobbits and Elves?

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

Hobbits and Elves?

Haha, no. I was thinking more along the lines of Negroid and Caucasoid

 

[jamanne]

Yes, we are united as one species, but we did not all descend from only two parents, except in the realm of mythology.

p here in Canada some geneticists made a study and it shows according to them that all human DNA proves we all go back to one original mother they haven’t found any evidence yet about the father

 

[fnr]

Haha, no. I was thinking more along the lines of Negroid and Caucasoid

Go far enough back, and we’re all Negroid. We all come from Africa, if we go far enough back. European ancestors migrated north, Asian and North American ancestors migrated east, African ancestors migrated in all directions.

Here’s the map of your ancestor’s pathways out of Africa:
genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/atlas.html

The greatest amount of genetic diversity is in the people who live around the area from which all of our ancestors migrated between 150k+ ish years ago to around 50k years ago.

 

[ricmat]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a great resource. I’d encourage you to check the current edition (2003) in addition to the one you cite from a century ago. The current edition includes this under “Adam”:

and

Thanks again for the great citation from the previous edition of the Encyclopedia, it’s really interesting to see how teaching develops.

I just received my Ignatius Study Bible (NT) today in the mail. By sheer coincidence, I opened it up to a page on which “type” is defined in a “word study” box. Here is part of what it says:

“In Biblical theology, a type is a person, place thing, event, or institution in Scripture that points to a future mystery. Romans 5:14 is a classic example: Paul shows that Adam, who shaped the first destiny of man for the worst, was a type of Christ, who reverses the tragic effects of sin by hi righteousness. Adam thus showed us in advance how the saving work of Jesus, the new Adam, would affect the entire world.”

 

[Vimy_Ridge]

Go far enough back, and we’re all Negroid. We all come from Africa, if we go far enough back. European ancestors migrated north, Asian and North American ancestors migrated east, African ancestors migrated in all directions.

Or maybe we were created by Yakub … thenationofislam.org/yakubabraham.html :nope:

To be honest I just find wacky alternative human origin stories more entertaining.

 

[fnr]

Or maybe we were created by Yakub … thenationofislam.org/yakubabraham.html :nope:

To be honest I just find wacky alternative human origin stories more entertaining.

WOW! What tremendous insight!
Maybe we should all tune in to the broadcasts of the mothership!
Wait, my receiver isn’t working…
Aw… man… I’m one of those white devils!!!