Neanderthals, Adam, and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pearl_of_Tyburn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“While Genesis is not 100% literal”

I agree. I accept the possibility that when Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, this book was already thousands of years old. Stone tablets, oral tradition, scrolls. Historical events in code.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11485320&postcount=3

“I don’t believe we evolved from Neanderthals or monkeys or slime or any of that stuff”

I agree. The Book of Genesis points to a time that human beings as created by God, were very close to God and free from Sin. Free from the knowledge of Good and Evil. Just think of it. No moral issues and divisions. Just simple joy and Innocence? I also accept that the first human beings as created by god were very advanced in other ways…

Being close to God is also being close to Heaven.

And also accept the first human beings were different than we are today. But, when tempted by Satan, Adam and Eve ate from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. A center tree in the “Garden of Eden”, we fallen away from God and became something less and impure - “Blood Poisoning”. Or, contaminated.

And Jesus Christ, thru his blood, died on the Cross and resurrected. For his blood is not stained with Original Sin and is pure. We are saved thru his Blood.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11485231&postcount=2

“most humans have Neanderthal DNA so we now know we interbred with them” - only after the fall?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11485881&postcount=9
 
jmr_1985 said:
I think the best way to approach this is to say revelation is limited by God to essentials. Original Sin is part of that limited revelation. How Original Sin plays into evolution and science, I don’t know and don’t think I can know.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

We still have a lot to learn in this regard, especially in the area of DNA and tracing the various lines.
 
aragonjohn1 said:
keep in mind that many cultures have myths, legends, stories etc… many

times may have a basis in historical fact and/or science but not always. ( eg: creation

descriptions, the character Noah and the flood, exaggerating amount of years

culture,group has been around eg: Egyptians some " primitive" tribes, and the stories of

one God, Gods, sub-gods, demi-gods, and other tales and histories ) The Catholic Church

is the source and summit of all truth; the fullness of truth, upon her reliabilty in love. truth,

and Traditions stands firm always.

God bless
Click to expand...
Tradition deals with faith and morals, not science.
 
Jesus Christ was God’s way of having a blood sample of earthly origin - God at work thru Jesus Christ. A reason for the Virgin Birth. Just God and Mary. And Jesus Christ was born without a need for a Human Male. If this was the case, his birth would of been like any other - blood contamination in all. From Adam thru Joseph.

By a Virgin Birth, Jesus Christ’s blood is now different. For the blood of Mary - or any other pregnant woman today - does not mix with the blood of the developing fetus. Just nutrients are interchanged…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11515228&postcount=41
 
Pearl_of_Tyburn said:
Hi, Everyone,

I know the Catholic Church has a pretty “open mind” when it comes to the scientific origins of humanity, since we know that however our bodies got to be the way they are, it was all part of God’s plan. But I’m wondering if there is a fine line with it all. Could our physical bodies have really derived from animals, meaning that our ancestors way back into the fogginess of infinity have been “soul-less”? What about the primitive neanderthals and the hunter-gathering tribes? Do we believe they had souls? And where would “our first parents” fit into this equasion?

Blessings,
Pearl
Click to expand...
Faith and evolution are not contradictory. The Church allows us to believe in evolution.
 
thistle said:
Faith and evolution are not contradictory. The Church allows us to believe in evolution.
Click to expand...
The following is taken from the Discovery Channel which many kids refer to. It provides a fairly clear definition.
According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection
Click to expand...
Is it your opinion that the church supports this view?

It seems we can discuss the issue, so I would ask how you understand the term “evolution”.
 
Skye_Ariel said:
I don’t believe we evolved from Neanderthals or monkeys or slime or any of that stuff. I believe Neanderthals existed but they were not human and we did not come from them. God created mankind the way we are, no evolving took place. I don’t know if Neanderthals had souls or not, but they were not human and we didn’t come from them. 😉 They were just another of God’s creation that looked similar to humans but they did not have the Breath of Life God gave to humanity.
Click to expand...
Yes, they were human LOL, testing has shown they had human DNA, just a bit different than modern man, they were actually better suited to survival than man today.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Tradition deals with faith and morals, not science.
Click to expand...
where did science come from then?

God gave love and the sciences developed the church should have at least some authority in matters in the realm of the sciences, eh?

one can not completely ignore natural law that pertain to the truth and the Catholic Church.

God bless
 
thistle said:
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=41159

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer my question but that’s ok.
I do know what the church says, and I can say that it is not how science sees things.
Again, people are using the word “evolution” very loosely.
I prefer not to use it, because scientifically it is founded on the principle that random * mutation is the source of change. This is flies in the face of our faith and common sense actually, Bring any animal in your study, there is not one who will know what it all means. There is such a spike in the human ability to connect with what is transcendent that it is no random event. If it were, looking at the level of mind that the rest of the animal world operates, we quickly would have mutated right back to the caves. There is no natural force directing life to greater complexity although this seems a fairly obvious fact. Entropy cannot explain it.

How we came to be is far more complex than is being taught today. There are serious social consequences to this.
  • According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through** mutation of DNA and natural selection**
Click to expand...
 
Aloysium said:
I prefer not to use it, because scientifically it is founded on the principle that random * mutation is the source of change. This is flies in the face of our faith and common sense actually, Bring any animal in your study, there is not one who will know what it all means. There is such a spike in the human ability to connect with what is transcendent that it is no random event. If it were, looking at the level of mind that the rest of the animal world operates, we quickly would have mutated right back to the caves. There is no natural force directing life to greater complexity although this seems a fairly obvious fact. Entropy cannot explain it.

How we came to be is far more complex than is being taught today. There are serious social consequences to this.
Click to expand...
You might want to read up on various experiments dealing with created RNA/DNA in the lab and it self replicating.

With regard to evolution amongst higher animals, you can see it happening today. One of the more interesting ones that I’ve read deals with elephants. The number of elephants being born today without tusks is an order of magnitude higher that a survey done about 80 years ago, with the number of females being born without tusks approximately 50% higher than males.
 
Many years ago I read this in our local newspaper. It was written by a man named Mike Paproski.

A billion or so years ago, in a geothermically heated pool of ooze, a chance gathering of chemicals was energized by lightning, and a life form was created from which all supracomplex life forms, including humans originated.

To believe this notion, proferred by evolutionists, atheists, etc., one must believe that this “life form” was immediately able to ingest nourishment and turn it into energy, thus ensuring it’s survival. More important qualities, if this miracle in the mud was to survive, would have been the ability and drive to replicate and reproduce. Conceding these qualities to a chimp of excited chemicals requires a greater leap of faith than believing in a God-creator.

Science has never witnessed or caused regenertive life to originate from nonliving chemicals. Conversely, it is science’s experience that regenerative life comes only from existing life. Therefore, a living enity (G0D), existing when life began on Earth,was most probably the origan of that life.

I loved it, and it’s been on my refrigerator ever since. God Bless, and Mary Christmas, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
To believe this notion, proferred by evolutionists, atheists, etc., one must believe that this “life form” was immediately able to ingest nourishment and turn it into energy, thus ensuring it’s survival. More important qualities, if this miracle in the mud was to survive, would have been the ability and drive to replicate and reproduce. Conceding these qualities to a chimp of excited chemicals requires a greater leap of faith than believing in a God-creator.

Science has never witnessed or caused regenertive life to originate from nonliving chemicals. Conversely, it is science’s experience that regenerative life comes only from existing life. Therefore, a living enity (G0D), existing when life began on Earth,was most probably the origan of that life.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you use something written many years ago. Why not something more recent?

Just a few years ago, scientists were able to create synthetic RNA that would replicate on its own. Not only that, the RNA would mutate, combine with other materials, evolve, and “compete.” Synthetic DNA has also been created and inserted into cells, created new life forms.

Granted, scientists haven’t gone from raw materials to higher life forms, but that is obviously extraordinarily difficult. We’re relatively early in our understanding of this study of biology, which occurred in nature over billions of years. Replicating this in the lab isn’t going to happen overnight.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Interesting that you use something written many years ago. Why not something more recent?

Just a few years ago, scientists were able to create synthetic RNA that would replicate on its own. Not only that, the RNA would mutate, combine with other materials, evolve, and “compete.” Synthetic DNA has also been created and inserted into cells, created new life forms.

Granted, scientists haven’t gone from raw materials to higher life forms, but that is obviously extraordinarily difficult. We’re relatively early in our understanding of this study of biology, which occurred in nature over billions of years. Replicating this in the lab isn’t going to happen overnight.
Click to expand...
Synthetic is still synthetic, think they will ever be able to “be fruitful and multiply”? Robots are synthetic. God Bless, and Mary Christmas, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
Synthetic is still synthetic, think they will ever be able to “be fruitful and multiply”? Robots are synthetic. God Bless, and Mary Christmas, Memaw
Click to expand...
You didn’t read my post. The answer is yes; it was fruitful and multiplied. The RNA reproduced itself, mutated, attached itself to other substances, and evolved.

Many people impose their own personal standards on a discussion. It is unlikely we’re going be able to take some substances in a lab and turn them into man in a short time frame. That would be imposing a limitation on evolution which even God didn’t choose to do.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
You didn’t read my post. The answer is yes; it was fruitful and multiplied. The RNA reproduced itself, mutated, attached itself to other substances, and evolved.

Many people impose their own personal standards on a discussion. It is unlikely we’re going be able to take some substances in a lab and turn them into man in a short time frame. That would be imposing a limitation on evolution which even God didn’t choose to do.
Click to expand...
Which natural force guides these transformations of life towards greater complexity? Entropy? Blind luck is insufficient an explanation.
 
Aloysium said:
Which natural force guides these transformations of life towards greater complexity? Entropy? Blind luck is insufficient an explanation.
Click to expand...
I would rather doubt they can call it “life” if it’s synthetic. Doesn’t sound very natural to me either. God Bless, and Mary Christmas, Memaw
 
Aloysium said:
The following is taken from the Discovery Channel which many kids refer to. It provides a fairly clear definition.

Is it your opinion that the church supports this view?

It seems we can discuss the issue, so I would ask how you understand the term “evolution”.
Click to expand...
Someone once told me not to believe everything you see on the Discovery Channel. God Bless, Memaw
 
Don’t get caught up in the terminology. Relying on a term that may not properly reflect what is occurring does not change the fact that it is occurring. The “synthetic” RNA used was made of exactly the same materials as “natural” RNA, and would be otherwise indistinguishable had there not been markers. “Synthetic” in this case means man putting together substances in the manner that nature does. It is simple common sense that if substances are combined in the manner God designed them, it is going to act the way God intended them to. If they don’t, investigate why, report the results, and collect your Nobel Prize.

Robots have nothing to do with this. They are man-made machines that are not made of biological material. I’m not aware of God making any robots.

The story of Adam and Eve is not about biology. It is about the awareness of God and obedience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top