Neanderthals, Adam, and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pearl_of_Tyburn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Memaw said:
Someone once told me not to believe everything you see on the Discovery Channel.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t believe everything that anyone tells me (due to my natural inquisitiveness, combined with my scientific background), . If a person wants to understand an issue, they should investigate it themselves, and not rely on someone’s secondhand opinion. Someone’s secondhand opinion of someone’s else’s opinion is not going to trump the opinion of someone relying on the direct results of a study.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
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.
Click to expand...
The word “evolution” means many things to many people. What you describe here, I would categorize more as adaptation. I am currently reading “Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer which makes a strong case for Intelligent Design. In it, he focuses on the Cambrian explosion of multiple life forms. A Darwinist would surely expect a plethora of Pre-Cambrian fossils over millions of years that led to these complex and exotic Cambrian life forms. There are none. They just seem to appear. So far it is a good read.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
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.
Click to expand...
God and the scientist were having a conversation and the scientist said , "God I can create man too. So God said, “OK lets see you do it.” So the scientist reached down and picked up a handful of dirt and God said, “Ah, ah, get your own dirt!” God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
God and the scientist were having a conversation and the scientist said , "God I can create man too. So God said, “OK lets see you do it.” So the scientist reached down and picked up a handful of dirt and God said, “Ah, ah, get your own dirt!” God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
Is the above dogma; i.e., God literally picked up dirt and made man? If so, please cite the official Church source.
 
yankee15 said:
The word “evolution” means many things to many people. What you describe here, I would categorize more as adaptation. I am currently reading “Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen Meyer which makes a strong case for Intelligent Design. In it, he focuses on the Cambrian explosion of multiple life forms. A Darwinist would surely expect a plethora of Pre-Cambrian fossils over millions of years that led to these complex and exotic Cambrian life forms. There are none. They just seem to appear. So far it is a good read.
Click to expand...
This is the opinion of a particular person. We have much to learn in this regard. The experiment I cited is within the past five years. Our understanding of biology will continue to rapidly progress.

There are “none” simply because they are buried in the Earth. It’s almost a given that I have Indian and Revolutionary War artifacts buried in my yard, but chances are I never find them because I’m not interested in digging up several acres of land to a depth of 50’ or so. Now why would you expect us to have a complete fossil record going back up to two million years buried far below the Earth with no idea where these fossils are?

We have yet to locate the Garden of Eden. Using your own criteria, does that mean it does not exist?
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
This is the opinion of a particular person. We have much to learn in this regard. The experiment I cited is within the past five years. Our understanding of biology will continue to rapidly progress.

There are “none” simply because they are buried in the Earth. It’s almost a given that I have Indian and Revolutionary War artifacts buried in my yard, but chances are I never find them because I’m not interested in digging up several acres of land to a depth of 50’ or so. Now why would you expect us to have a complete fossil record going back up to two million years buried far below the Earth with no idea where these fossils are?

We have yet to locate the Garden of Eden. Using your own criteria, does that mean it does not exist?
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinion. However, those Cambrian dig sites where huge numbers of fossils (soft and hard) were found, did not produce previous forms in adjacent layers. He was not describing some “hunt and peck” technique. I think it is reasonable to assume that those adjoining layers would produce some evolutionary evidence if it existed.
 
yankee15 said:
You are entitled to your opinion. However, those Cambrian dig sites where huge numbers of fossils (soft and hard) were found, did not produce previous forms in adjacent layers. He was not describing some “hunt and peck” technique. I think it is reasonable to assume that those adjoining layers would produce some evolutionary evidence if it existed.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the author is a controversial figure, has a bias, and does not have a degree in the matter the matter under discussion. Correct?

To fully understand an issue, both sides of the issue have to be investigated. I read all sorts of things about this matter back in the day; everything from Darwin to be people claiming DNA came from space to speed up the evolutionary process.
 
irenaeuslyons said:
Since I was a kid, I have always suspected that the Nephilim were the Neanderthal race.

credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-ot-book-genesis-gen-chapter-6/1/6/4
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting thought.

I still say that evolution can not work with creation belief. If humans evolved then where does that leave you concerning the fall of man and the need for Jesus as our savior? How can death enter through sin if man was already dying through evolution?? It does not work. I don’t know what those Neanderthals were, but I always did believe in the gap theory where something happened on the planet in between the time God created it and when he made us. I always believed Genesis was telling of how God** restored t**he earth in 6 days and then made humanity as we know it from the dirt. Who knows what went on on this earth and what kind of “people” were here before God started over with Adam & Eve. The Missins Link is that there IS NO LINK. 😉 That makes more sense than thinking humans evolved from monkeys or slime that accidentally touched each other and grew. :rolleyes: I think people are getting confused because they are looking at 2 different separate world systems and trying to integrate them into one. There was a history on this planet before God made Adam & Eve, that world died out or was destroyed and God started over again with Adam & Eve and restoring the planet in Genesis. They had similar DNA to us because they were created by the same author or designer, the same reason that animals have red blood and a heart like we do etc. God made animals from the dirt the same way we were made from the dirt so who’s to say other beings were not made from dirt by God too before their world ended. It’s like after Jesus comes back and takes us all to Heaven, what will He do with this earth? It’s like if He restores this earth once again into a perfect place and forms a totally different and separate group of beings from the dirt and start them on their experience and they will look at remnants of our existence and wonder about us the same way we wonder about Neanderthals. We were not God’s first creation and we won’t be His last. So I believe what the bible says, and any fossils or remnants of life millions of years ago is not a part of our story. Our story begins with Adam & Eve in the form we are now. 👍
 
Skye_Ariel said:
That’s an interesting thought.

I still say that evolution can not work with creation belief. If humans evolved then where does that leave you concerning the fall of man and the need for Jesus as our savior? How can death enter through sin if man was already dying through evolution?? It does not work. I don’t know what those Neanderthals were, but I always did believe in the gap theory where something happened on the planet in between the time God created it and when he made us. I always believed Genesis was telling of how God** restored t**he earth in 6 days and then made humanity as we know it from the dirt. Who knows what went on on this earth and what kind of “people” were here before God started over with Adam & Eve. The Missins Link is that there IS NO LINK. 😉 That makes more sense than thinking humans evolved from monkeys or slime that accidentally touched each other and grew. :rolleyes: I think people are getting confused because they are looking at 2 different separate world systems and trying to integrate them into one. There was a history on this planet before God made Adam & Eve, that world died out or was destroyed and God started over again with Adam & Eve and restoring the planet in Genesis. They had similar DNA to us because they were created by the same author or designer, the same reason that animals have red blood and a heart like we do etc. God made animals from the dirt the same way we were made from the dirt so who’s to say other beings were not made from dirt by God too before their world ended. It’s like after Jesus comes back and takes us all to Heaven, what will He do with this earth? It’s like if He restores this earth once again into a perfect place and forms a totally different and separate group of beings from the dirt and start them on their experience and they will look at remnants of our existence and wonder about us the same way we wonder about Neanderthals. We were not God’s first creation and we won’t be His last. So I believe what the bible says, and any fossils or remnants of life millions of years ago is not a part of our story. Our story begins with Adam & Eve in the form we are now. 👍
Click to expand...
That contradicts Church teaching.
Genesis is the creation story and NOT the restoration story.
 
That is incorrect. Jesus is the Redeemer.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incaa1.htm

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”
Click to expand...
I’m still not sure whether this is a statement on science or faith. That’s important, because the Church has authority over one and not the other.

That said, if the above is true, it realistically puts the creation of man back a couple of million years, and probably longer. Otherwise, we have the issue of other humans walking the Earth at the same time as Adam and Eve. Now if the story of Adam and Eve dealt with man’s awareness of God, the timing can easily coincide with Biblical lineage.

Lineage is very important in tradition. I don’t see how the lineage can be complete if the first man and woman lived millions of years ago, as the current fossil record is showing.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
I’m still not sure whether this is a statement on science or faith. That’s important, because the Church has authority over one and not the other.

That said, if the above is true, it realistically puts the creation of man back a couple of million years, and probably longer. Otherwise, we have the issue of other humans walking the Earth at the same time as Adam and Eve. Now if the story of Adam and Eve dealt with man’s awareness of God, the timing can easily coincide with Biblical lineage.

Lineage is very important in tradition. I don’t see how the lineage can be complete if the first man and woman lived millions of years ago, as the current fossil record is showing.
Click to expand...
The Church does have authority over all, but some just don’t know it yet.
It was the Church that Jesus said, “I will be with you all days even to the end of the world. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” I don’t ever recall Jesus saying that to science. And science has fallen under the wrong influence in many ways. I trust the Church and science only when it is in agreement with the Church and under Her authority. God Bless and Mary Christmas, Memaw
 
thistle said:
That contradicts Church teaching.
Genesis is the creation story and NOT the restoration story.
Click to expand...
Yes, In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth. Yes that’s the creation. Genesis just leaves out what happens after that and picks up with God restoring the earth and creating mankind, our species. No contradiction at all.
 
The fossil record is incomplete, which people of course jump onto like white on rice, because it’s the only thing they have. The fossil record is going to have large gaps, simply because the fossilization is a rare event, not a common one. The conditions must be right for preservation, especially soft tissue.

Additionally, it really only been recently that we’ve been able to categorize all of this data, especially when it comes to the genetic code. There is a massive amount of data contained in DNA, and all of the cross referencing takes much time and effort.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Well first, neanderthals were not only contemporaneous with early man,
thus not ancestral, they were not even the same species. They were a
cousin species, so to speak, closer to us than chimps, which is really
close, but still not the same as what we would consider human-human.

Genesis is not all literal, as science shows, but Genesis doesn’t have
to be “factual” for it to express Truth, if you understand. Evolution did
happen, God gave one hominid species a soul at some point, we do
not know when. While Genesis is not 100% literal, we can be sure
that humans were in a good stance before God, but then humans
did something that offended God, the First Sin. What was that
sin that God has us all cursed from birth for? My question is
“Does it really matter?” No, we sinned, God gave a story
to ancient people touching on that particular point.

We’re Sinners, We Need a Savior, Jesus is Savior, let’s go on from there.
Click to expand...
While yes, Genesis is not to be taken as a science book, we cannot forget that the Church does teach that Adam and Eve are literal, historical persons who were the literal first set of parents for all humanity. It was the literal Adam and Eve that committed the first sin, not a group or population of humans. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html reminds us of this:
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
Click to expand...
Also, the feast day of Adam and Eve is on Christmas Eve. catholicism.org/saint-adam-and-saint-eve-first-age-of-the-world.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top