Other men at the time of Adam and Eve?

[agname]

“I was saying that there is nothing in science that says all humans do not descend from a common mother (or father).”

It’s inconclusive.

“Why are you uncomfortable with the idea, may I ask?”

From scientific research…logic…in combination with my Catholic faith.

“Most scientists today would agree that we all come from the same small group.”

Group…yes…I don’t doubt it was a group. See above.

 

[agname]

scopi:

One book on this subject that I found fascinating was “The Science of God,” written by Gerald L. Schroeder, a Jewish MIT professor. He postulated that the account of Genesis is not in conflict with some “evolutionary” theories. For instance, he discussed the significance of God “[blowing] into [Adam’s] nostrils the breath of life, and so man came a living being.” (Gen 2:7).

In the book, it is suggested that Adam could have been in existance as a primitive man and came to be a “living being” only after receiving the breath of life. Compare the times in Scripture to when God (or Jesus) “breathed” on humans…there is strong significance in the breath of God upon humanity.

The author suggests that maybe, through some form of “evolution,” a primitive man came to know God in a way that had never been experienced by another primitive man. Maybe at that moment, when the created realized the Creator, God became manifest to humanity and…the rest is history.

Just thought I’d throw my humble thoughts into the discussion.

I believe I’ve read that too…and it was a pretty good read.

I’ve also wondered about primitive man…and him having the mental faculties to be accountable for his actions, etc.

 

[agname]

yinekka

… " Catholics are obligated to believe that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve." I always thought that this was so and told someone on another discussion board. He said I was wrong and asked me to provide a source for the statement. I couldn’t. Can you help me out?

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 no 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.

HUMANI GENERIS (37)

POPE PIUS XII, 12 August 1950

It’s also ordinary magisterium…not extraordinary magisterium (i.e. ex cathedra). Though, I believe in original sin.

Assent of faith is not required…but the benefit of the doubt should be given.

 

[Edwin_Taraba]

_Christopher_:

Since we are obligated to believe that Adam/Eve were the first people, I wonder what that does to evolution theories?

I assume we are allowed to believe that Adam/Eve had their physical bodies derived from some sort of animal…but does that really make any sense?

Christopher,
Not only do we believe that Adam and Eve were the first people but the doctrine of original sin includes the concept that death did not exist before the fall of Adam and Eve.

Romans 5:12 “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”

All theories of evolution (even theistic evolution) include the concept that death existed for millions of years prior to Adam and Eve. The two ideas (evolution and biblical creation/original sin) simply are not compatible any way you look at it.

I feel that those who do the mental gymnastics required to reconcile evolution with biblical creation are doing so because they know truth cannot contradict truth. When all they know about science seems to contradict the bible they have to bend both science and their interpretation of the bible to make them fit together. Thus we get theistic evolution theories.

The good news is Darwinism is rapidly crumbling and is not fit to survive. The fossil record’s Cambrian Explosion and lack of transitional forms have been known for decades to disprove Darwinism. The fact that DNA had to precede the onset of the so called natural selection process coupled with the fact that science has shown, (and even staunch evolutionists accept the fact), that DNA cannot be spontaneously generated in nature also disproves Darwinism. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA and devout atheist, threw out Darwin long ago but has been unable to replace it with anything generally accepted. And most recently molecular biology’s concept of “irreducible complexity” disproves Darwinism. Hundreds of reputable scientists around the world have been writing books and publishing articles refuting evolution theory.

It is a good thing that I feel Catholics and all Christians should be making a lot of noise about - the preponderance of the evidence accumulating during recent decades sides with church teachings and the biblical creation story.

 

[Matt16_18]

agname

*Humani Generis is] also ordinary magisterium…not extraordinary magisterium (i.e. ex cathedra). Though, I believe in original sin. Assent of faith [to Humani Generis] is not required…but the benefit of the doubt should be given.

I agree that Pope Pius IIX is not making a papal ex cathedra statement in Humani Generis. He is, however, affirming the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium, and hence, he is affirming an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church that requires the assent of the faithful.

The teaching in Humani Generis has a status similar to the teaching of Pope John Paul II in * Ordinatio Sacerdotalis*. In OS Pope John Paul II is witnessing to a doctrine infallibly held by the Church, namely, that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” Exercising his unique Petrine office “of confirming the brethren,” the Pope is teaching as definitive (esse definitive tenendam) an infallible doctrine belonging to the deposit of the faith.

 

[Esther111894]

Adam lived for 9 generations so he of course had to have a large amount of children.

 

[irishcolleen45]

Many recent scientific discoveries show that mankind has been in existence for over 10,000 years. Is that when Adam and Eve came into being?

A biblical timeline I recently read shows Abraham lived 3,200 years ago. Is there that much time between Abraham and Adam (over 6,000 years)?

 

[twinc]

Many recent scientific discoveries show that mankind has been in existence for over 10,000 years. Is that when Adam and Eve came into being?

A biblical timeline I recently read shows Abraham lived 3,200 years ago. Is there that much time between Abraham and Adam (over 6,000 years)?/QUOTE

It must be remembered that the Patriarchs of old lived for hundreds of years and that Adam lived for over 900years - twinc

 

[irishcolleen45]

Thank you, twinc for your comments.

I do realize that Adam along with other people lived for hundreds of years but I don’t think the time noted in the bible adds up to over 6,000 years. Of course our years may not be the same length of time as in earlier times.