Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[StAnastasia]

First of all, I am not out to prove anything about Noah’s flood.
7th, I am out to prove that the possibility of two sole parents of the human race exists.
9th, As for exhibiting a dogged insistence – you haven’t seen anything yet as to how stubborn I am.Blessings,granny

Granny, I admire your stubbornness! Two points:

(1) As Alec has shown from genetics, you will not be able to prove the possibility of two sole parents of the human race. In this genetic universe you simply won’t find the evidence to substantiate it. But happy trying anyway!

(2) If you do try to prove two parents of the race, you should in consistency show that it happened twice, both with Adam and Eve, and with Noah and his wife – both myths imply two-person bottlenecks. It may be that you are dismissing Genesis chatpers 6-9 as unhistorical, but then you have to justify why you read Genesis 1-3 as historical. Good luck.

StAnastasia

 

[itinerant1]

Granny, I admire your stubbornness! Two points:

(1) As Alec has shown from genetics, you will not be able to prove the possibility of two sole parents of the human race. In this genetic universe you simply won’t find the evidence to substantiate it. But happy trying anyway!

(2) If you do try to prove two parents of the race, you should in consistency show that it happened twice, both with Adam and Eve, and with Noah and his wife – both myths imply two-person bottlenecks. It may be that you are dismissing Genesis chatpers 6-9 as unhistorical, but then you have to justify why you read Genesis 1-3 as historical. Good luck.

StAnastasia

The position that the human race descended from two parents is a matter of the faith. The problem here is to figure out why there is a discrepancy with what the faith asserts and the current scientific understanding. Do we have a real or just an apprarent contradiction is what this comes down to. There are some factors about this conflict that have not even entered the discussion yet. Hopefully, I will be able to address that soon.

In regard to the Noah story, we have a different genus litterarium. The Noah story need not be understood in the historical sense, especially when the Babylonian flood stories are considered. The Noah account is a theological polemic in response to the Epic of Gilgamesh that provides a correct theology for the Hebrews as opposed to the erroneous and mythological theology or mythology of the Babylonian myth. The Noah story was then worked into a theological history of Israel. A theological history in the ancient Semitic sense differs radically from our modern concept of history.

Hence, the only real issue remaining pertains to the origin of the human race and the Genesis accounts of creation. Any scientist who takes issue with the Noah story is lacking in his understanding of biblical scholarship. But then again, that is not his area of expertise. It is helpful to keep in mind that everyone one of us is ignorant, just on different subjects.

 

[liquidpele]

The position that the human race descended from two parents is a matter of the faith. The problem here is to figure out why there is a discrepancy with what the faith asserts and the current scientific understanding. Do we have a real or just an apprarent contradiction is what this comes down to. There are some factors about this conflict that have not even entered the discussion yet. Hopefully, I will be able to address that soon.

In regard to the Noah story, we have a different genus litterarium. The Noah story need not be understood in the historical sense, especially when the Babylonian flood stories are considered. The Noah account is a theological polemic in response to the Epic of Gilgamesh that provides a correct theology for the Hebrews as opposed to the erroneous and mythological theology or mythology of the Babylonian myth. The Noah story was then worked into a theological history of Israel. A theological history in the ancient Semitic sense differs radically from our modern concept of history.

Hence, the only real issue remaining pertains to the origin of the human race and the Genesis accounts of creation. Any scientist who takes issue with the Noah story is lacking in his understanding of biblical scholarship. But then again, that is not his area of expertise. It is helpful to keep in mind that everyone one of us is ignorant, just on different subjects.

You must not live in the US. We have people here that think the grand canyon was carved by Noah’s flood… If scientists are taking issue with the story it is in response to these sorts of people.

 

[StAnastasia]

Any scientist who takes issue with the Adam story is lacking in her understanding of biblical scholarship. Genesis chapters 1-3 are not historical, but rather are in the genre of cosmogonic myth. “Adam and Eve” are theological representations of the human race. If it helps your spirituality to think of them as two concrete individuals living in 4004 BCE, by all means think of them that way. I and many of my fellow Catholic theologians think of them symbolically rather than literally. When I meet one who thinks literally about these cosmogonic pericopes, I’ll let you know.

 

[StAnastasia]

Any scientist who takes issue with the Noah story is lacking in his understanding of biblical scholarship. But then again, that is not his area of expertise. It is helpful to keep in mind that everyone one of us is ignorant, just on different subjects.

Any scientist who takes issue with the Adam story is lacking in her understanding of biblical scholarship. Genesis chapters 1-3 are not historical, but rather are in the genre of cosmogonic myth. “Adam and Eve” are theological representations of the human race. If it helps your spirituality to think of them as two concrete individuals living in 4004 BCE, by all means think of them that way. I and many of my fellow Catholic theologians think of them symbolically rather than literally. When I meet one who thinks literally about these cosmogonic pericopes, I’ll let you know.

 

[StAnastasia]

You must not live in the US. We have people here that think the grand canyon was carved by Noah’s flood… If scientists are taking issue with the story it is in response to these sorts of people.

Quite a lot of people, as a matter of fact, around 40% of adult Americans, including 25% who have post-high school education!

 

[edwest2]

I think Adam and Eve were two literal individuals. Catholics are taught to believe that God made Eve from Adam’s side. And there is the reference in the Bible that through one man sin entered the world. One man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

I think Adam and Eve were two literal individuals. Catholics are taught to believe that God made Eve from Adam’s side. And there is the reference in the Bible that through one man sin entered the world. One man.Peace,Ed

Ed, I’m happy a literal interpretation helps you spiritually.

 

[liquidpele]

I think Adam and Eve were two literal individuals. Catholics are taught to believe that God made Eve from Adam’s side. And there is the reference in the Bible that through one man sin entered the world. One man.

Peace,
Ed

I’m curious why you interpret “through one man” as “there was only one man alive” ?

 

[eucharisteo]

I’m curious why you interpret “through one man” as “there was only one man alive” ?

As Catholics and to be considered Catholic we are requred to believe that Adam and Eve are all of our first parents. Therefore, no other man could have exsisted and thus their children would inherit the stain or original sin.
PAX

 

[pzona]

I think Adam and Eve were two literal individuals. Catholics are taught to believe that God made Eve from Adam’s side. And there is the reference in the Bible that through one man sin entered the world. One man.

Peace,
Ed

Unfortunately, the word Adam is mistranslated. In its original context, “Adam,” was “adam,” which is simply the Hebrew word for man. This could very well be a symbolic story.

 

[itinerant1]

Any scientist who takes issue with the Adam story is lacking in her understanding of biblical scholarship. Genesis chapters 1-3 are not historical, but rather are in the genre of cosmogonic myth. “Adam and Eve” are theological representations of the human race. If it helps your spirituality to think of them as two concrete individuals living in 4004 BCE, by all means think of them that way. I and many of my fellow Catholic theologians think of them symbolically rather than literally. When I meet one who thinks literally about these cosmogonic pericopes, I’ll let you know.

You are totally out of the loop and disconnected on the subject. Your disconnect from reliable biblical exegesis is equal to that of the fundamentalists. That Adam and Eve represent in addition to humanity in general, an historical first man and woman at the head of the human race has been the constant interpretation and teaching of Judaism, the Church Fathers, the Magesterium of the Church, and the consensus of modern biblical scholars of any repute. That interpretation has no necessary connection with the religious chronology of the biblical writers. The Church’s interpretation is consistent with the ancient age of the earth and human evolution. Hence, your objection has no merit whatsoever. I will be glad to provide mainline scholarly resources for you to consult since you are stuck in an eccentric and erroneous interpretation of your own devise.

 

[itinerant1]

You must not live in the US. We have people here that think the grand canyon was carved by Noah’s flood… If scientists are taking issue with the story it is in response to these sorts of people.

Perhaps you missed my point. I am very well aware of the fundamentalist nonsense that denies the obvious facts of science about the world. This includes denial of the ancient age of the world and the fact of common descent of all biological organism.

I was pointing out that a certain poster, who should know better, took issue with the Noah story. The history of as well as mainline modern biblical scholarship is something StAnastasia knows nothing about. If the issues I am bringing up are not listened to, I am left seeing fundamentalist, ID creationist nonsense on one side, and perverted biblical liberalism nonsense on the other side. Yuk!

 

[rossum]

As Catholics and to be considered Catholic we are requred to believe that Adam and Eve are all of our first parents. Therefore, no other man could have exsisted and thus their children would inherit the stain or original sin.
PAX

This is not correct. Every person alive today can trace their descent back to the Y-Chromosome Adam. He was not the only man alive at the time, but was one of a population, nevertheless we are all descended from him.

Similarly we can all be descended from one historical Adam, yet that Adam would not have to have been the only man (nor Eve the only woman) alive at the time. For example, Adam and Eve have a child, Seth. Seth marries Mada’s daugher, an only child. From that point on all descendants of Mada (through his only daughter) are also descendants of Adam and Eve (through her husband Seth). So Mada was a man alive at the time of Adam and all of his modern descendants are also descended from both Adam and Eve.

rossum

 

[eucharisteo]

This is not correct. Every person alive today can trace their descent back to the Y-Chromosome Adam. He was not the only man alive at the time, but was one of a population, nevertheless we are all descended from him.

Similarly we can all be descended from one historical Adam, yet that Adam would not have to have been the only man (nor Eve the only woman) alive at the time. For example, Adam and Eve have a child, Seth. Seth marries Mada’s daugher, an only child. From that point on all descendants of Mada (through his only daughter) are also descendants of Adam and Eve (through her husband Seth). So Mada was a man alive at the time of Adam and all of his modern descendants are also descended from both Adam and Eve.

rossum

As Catholics and to be considered Catholic we are requred to believe that Adam and Eve are all of our first parents. Therefore, no other man could be in our lineage and whether or not they existed is irrelevant [in my opinion], but further research would have to be conducted to get this guy off my back. If another group of man existed then they would not have had an immortal soul because then all that we are taught would no longer be true or at least might not and then that begins the question, “does god exist”? However, I’m not that closed minded that I’d throw the baby out with the primordial soup just to please guys that criticize me.

 

[edwest2]

I’m curious why you interpret “through one man” as “there was only one man alive” ?

Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

See part 37 of Humani Generis:

damienhighschool.org/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

We are not allowed to believe that there were other men besides Adam.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Unfortunately, the word Adam is mistranslated. In its original context, “Adam,” was “adam,” which is simply the Hebrew word for man. This could very well be a symbolic story.

I understand what you’re saying. The Catholic Church does not regard it as symbolic. See part 37 of Humani Generis:

damienhighschool.org/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

See part 37 of Humani Generis:

damienhighschool.org/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

We are not allowed to believe that there were other men besides Adam.

Peace,
Ed

“Not Allowed” ? Do you not have a mind of your own?

 

[eucharisteo]

“Not Allowed” ? Do you not have a mind of your own?

Nope! Not at all. They collect those when we’re born or cross the Tiber.

 

[StAnastasia]

As Catholics and to be considered Catholic we are requred to believe that Adam and Eve are all of our first parents. Therefore, no other man could have exsisted and thus their children would inherit the stain or original sin.
PAX

No. Unless you are a fundamentalist biblical-literalist, you don’t need to leave your brains on the doormat and accept a literal Adam and Eve 6,000-10,000 years ago. I participate in and give papers at the professional meetings of three major theological societies, one of them Catholic. I have yet to meet a theologian who is an Adamic literalist. None of my colleagues in the seminary are Adamic literalists. Our pastor is not an Adamic literalist, nor is our bishop. None of the dozens of parishes where I’ve gone to Mass during my conferences since 1988 have been Adamic literalist parishes, including those in the South, the West, the Northeast, the Midwest, the West, Europe, Australia, and South America. In fact, before I started checking out Catholic Answers, I had never met an Adamic literalist. You may imagine what a surprise it’s been!

StAnastasia