Oldest Grave Flowers Unearthed in Israel

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Serpent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The age of the earth is not really the important question.

The more interesting questions is: When was Adam created?

Modern scientists still can’t reach a consensus on the birth date of Adam. They keep revising their estimates to an earlier and earlier date, getting closer and closer to the Biblical estimate of around 4000 B.C:

“Mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this gives an age of about 6000 years.” cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html
 
I’d say around 80000 years ago in the middle east, specifically the region around the Persian Gulf.
 
HansTrappist said:
Modern scientists still can’t reach a consensus on the birth date of Adam. They keep revising their estimates to an earlier and earlier date, getting closer and closer to the Biblical estimate of around 4000 B.C:
Click to expand...
I do not believe 4000 BC is correct. Our lineage goes back at least in the range of hundreds of thousands of years. It has been confirmed that homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) and homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon) interbred and also that there was interbreeding with a third subspecies called homo sapiens denisova (Denisovians). A certain portion of the human population today are actually hybrids containing genomes originating from two or all three of those subspecies. So, in order to find a date for Adam, you first need to define exactly what Adam was. In any case, if there was a real Adam (interpreting his relation to us literally), he must have lived many hundreds of thousands of years ago.
 
devoutchristian said:
More like tens of thousands.
Click to expand...
See post #4 again. I included an explanation. Based on the science, I would not consider Adam to be the literal father of humanity. Perhaps the first to receive a soul, but not the literal progenitor of our species.
 
Well, so far we know that Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA), the most recent common ancestor from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally, lived 237,000 to 581,000 years ago, and that Mitochondrial Eve, the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living people, lived approximately 200,000 years ago.

Of course, science (sorry, the consensus of the scientific community at this time) says “there is no reason why Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam should necessarily have lived at the same time” and that “the bearer of the chromosomes were not the only human male and female alive during his time, but their male and female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken male and female line to any living human in the present day”. Of course, that hypothesis is just the fruit of someone’s imagination in line with evolutionism, and as far as we know it is also a perfectly valid hypothesis that they may actually have been the only male and female and have lived together.

It is sententia certa that the whole human race stems from one single human pair: meaning it is a theologically certain judgment, part of infallible ordinary magisterium. We assume science will eventually show this to be the way things happened. Maybe when it ceases to be under the heel of atheism.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I do not believe 4000 BC is correct. Our lineage goes back at least in the range of hundreds of thousands of years. It has been confirmed that homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) and homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon) interbred and also that there was interbreeding with a third subspecies called homo sapiens denisova (Denisovians). A certain portion of the human population today are actually hybrids containing genomes originating from two or all three of those subspecies. So, in order to find a date for Adam, you first need to define exactly what Adam was. In any case, if there was a real Adam (interpreting his relation to us literally), he must have lived many hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
I’m not taking about neanderthals and the other apes.

I’m talking about Adam, the first Human Being. Some of the Greatest Scientific and Biblical Minds of all time (Scotus, Maimonides, Spondanus, Pereira, Cappel, Ussher, Calmet, Isaac Newton, Kepler, Luther, Mercator, etc.) put the creation of Adam around 4000 BC. Their calculations coincide with modern microbiology (cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html)
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
See post #4 again. I included an explanation. Based on the science, I would not consider Adam to be the literal father of humanity. Perhaps the first to receive a soul, but not the literal progenitor of our species.
Click to expand...
You have an errant definition of the word “proven”.
R_C said:
Well, so far we know that Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA), the most recent common ancestor from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally, lived 237,000 to 581,000 years ago, and that Mitochondrial Eve, the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living people, lived approximately 200,000 years ago.

Of course, science (sorry, the consensus of the scientific community at this time) says “there is no reason why Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam should necessarily have lived at the same time” and that “the bearer of the chromosomes were not the only human male and female alive during his time, but their male and female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken male and female line to any living human in the present day”. Of course, that hypothesis is just the fruit of someone’s imagination in line with evolutionism, and as far as we know it is also a perfectly valid hypothesis that they may actually have been the only male and female and have lived together.

It is sententia certa that the whole human race stems from one single human pair: meaning it is a theologically certain judgment, part of infallible ordinary magisterium. We assume science will eventually show this to be the way things happened. Maybe when it ceases to be under the heel of atheism.
Click to expand...
I’m going to have to ask you for a source for your dates.
 
It is interesting that the neanderthals seem to have engaged in ritual burial and primitive ‘art’, it also seems according to some DNA research there may have been an (name removed by moderator)ut of some of their DNA into the sapiens line. So, just where if any they figure in the Divine scheme of things? Could they be the Nephilim mentioned in some early Torah and Biblical accounts?

'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio … '?
 
HansTrappist said:
I’m not taking about neanderthals and the other apes. I’m talking about Adam, the first Human Being.
Click to expand...
Neanderthals, Denisovians, and Cro-Magnon were not apes. They were very similar to us and are our genetically proven direct ancestors from which every human in existence at this very moment descends. Genomes don’t lie so arguing against that is a futile endeavor. The only thing that matters, according to Catholic teaching, is that Adam and Eve had souls and we descended from them. “Human Being” should not and cannot be interpreted to mean that we are a biologically pure species, because we aren’t.
HansTrappist said:
I’m talking about Adam, the first Human Being. Some of the Greatest Scientific and Biblical Minds of all time (Scotus, Maimonides, Spondanus, Pereira, Cappel, Ussher, Calmet, Isaac Newton, Kepler, Luther, Mercator, etc.) put the creation of Adam around 4000 BC. Their calculations coincide with modern microbiology.
Click to expand...
That simply isn’t the case. I’m afraid that page is relying on very inaccurate information from a literal creationist/young earth website called “christiananswers.net”
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Neanderthals, Denisovians, and Cro-Magnon were not apes. They were very similar to us and are our genetically proven direct ancestors from which every human in existence at this very moment descends. Genomes don’t lie so arguing against that is a futile endeavor. The only thing that matters, according to Catholic teaching, is that Adam and Eve had souls and we descended from them. “Human Being” should not and cannot be interpreted to mean that we are a biologically pure species, because we aren’t.
Click to expand...
Adam and Even were genetically unique and were not in any way related to the Neanderthals, Denisovians, Cro-Magnon.

Cro-Magnon, Denisovians and the Neanderthals had more in common with apes than they did with Adam and Eve.
 
HansTrappist said:
I’m not interested in the name of the website. I am interested in how you concluded the information is “very inaccurate”?
Click to expand...
Do you really want to go down the road of defending a source which states things like “There is no scientific proof that fossils, coal, or the Earth are billions of years old”, describes plate tectonics as a “radical” theory, argues that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and tries to advance water canopy “theory”? I don’t think you do, I think you’re smarter than that, but if you did this isn’t the thread for it.
HansTrappist said:
Adam and Even were genetically unique and were not in any way related to the Neanderthals, Denisovians, Cro-Magnon. Cro-Magnon, Denisovians and the Neanderthals had more in common with apes than they did with Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Like I said, genomes do not lie. We are the direct genetic descendants of Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Denisovians. All of this interbreeding occuring within the last several hundred thousand years. Catholics are not required to believe that Adam and Eve were biologically unique and, believing that they are our progenitors necessitates acceptance of the science that they weren’t biologically unique.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Do you really want to go down the road of defending a source which states things like “There is no scientific proof that fossils, coal, or the Earth are billions of years old”, describes plate tectonics as a “radical” theory, argues that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and tries to advance water canopy “theory”? I don’t think you do, I think you’re smarter than that, but if you did this isn’t the thread for it…
Click to expand...
I’m not interested in fossils, coal, plate tectonics, dinosaurs, or water canopy theory.

I am interested in you demonstrating just where the specific claims made here: cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html are incorrect.
EmperorNapoleon said:
Like I said, genomes do not lie. We are the direct genetic descendants of Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and Denisovians. All of this interbreeding occuring within the last several hundred thousand years. Catholics are not required to believe that Adam and Eve were biologically unique and, believing that they are our progenitors necessitates acceptance of the science that they weren’t biologically unique.
Click to expand...
Whether or not we are the “direct descendants” of Neanderthals is open to debate. There is no scientific consensus on that question.

I just find it interesting that the current genetic evidence suggests an earlier, and earlier date for the birthdate of Human Beings (not to be confused with Neanderthals)…steadily approaching the date that Isaac Newton and the other God-fearing scientists figured out centuries ago.
 
HansTrappist said:
I’m not interested in fossils, coal, plate tectonics, dinosaurs, or water canopy theory.

I am interested in you demonstrating just where the specific claims made here: cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html are incorrect.

Whether or not we are the “direct descendants” of Neanderthals is open to debate. There is no scientific consensus on that question.

I just find it interesting that the current genetic evidence suggests an earlier, and earlier date for the birthdate of Human Beings (not to be confused with Neanderthals)…steadily approaching the date that Isaac Newton and the other God-fearing scientists figured out centuries ago.
Click to expand...
Please cite additional sources for you conclusion of 4000 years. You should not reach conclusions on such matters from the words of a single source, especially when that source is on the internet.

Personally, I don’t think it really matters when Homo Sapiens emerged; it’s great to know from a historical part, and I love it when we learn new things about our distant history, but so far as religion is concerned, the only fact of importance is that there was a first ensouled man and a first ensouled woman, whom we refer to as Adam and Eve. How far into the “homo-sapien” line they were is really of little consequence.
 
HansTrappist said:
The age of the earth is not really the important question.

The more interesting questions is: When was Adam created?

Modern scientists still can’t reach a consensus on the birth date of Adam. They keep revising their estimates to an earlier and earlier date, getting closer and closer to the Biblical estimate of around 4000 B.C
Click to expand...
Your Young Earth sources are lying to you. The Earth is a lot more than 6,000 years old and humanity goes back over 100,000 years.

There is a valid theological, though not scientific, question about Adam. Adam had a soul, and since souls do not fossilise and do not show up in our DNA then science cannot determine when the first souls appeared. That is a valid question for theology.

Since science cannot determine the presence of a soul, which is immaterial, then any scientist trying to determine that date is not speaking for science but for him or herself.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Your Young Earth sources are lying to you. The Earth is a lot more than 6,000 years old and humanity goes back over 100,000 years.

There is a valid theological, though not scientific, question about Adam. Adam had a soul, and since souls do not fossilise and do not show up in our DNA then science cannot determine when the first souls appeared. That is a valid question for theology.

Since science cannot determine the presence of a soul, which is immaterial, then any scientist trying to determine that date is not speaking for science but for him or herself.

rossum
Click to expand...
👍
 
HansTrappist said:
I’m not taking about neanderthals and the other apes.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be quick to call them “apes”. Some of the recent anthropologists have proposed that if we met one today, dressed like a modern person, we wouldn’t especially notice them. (Personally, I think I know several.)

Anyway, here are some of the images. google.com/search?q=pictures+of+neanderthal&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADFA_enUS486&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qjHUUZOaCoTpygGL3oCQAQ&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=571
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top