F
Faith1960
Guest
He wrote it over SIXTY years ago! I wouldnt trust or see a doctor who graduated from medical school that long ago. Would you?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please refer to posts 175 & 180.He wrote it over SIXTY years ago! I wouldnt trust or see a doctor who graduated from medical school that long ago. Would you?
I do not go to any doctor (or scientist) when I am looking for God’s Divine Revelation about the eternal purpose of my life. My decomposing body may share a grave with a doctor’s decomposing body. But I am not willing to settle for that.
To be more clear. A human doctor or a human scientist does not call us to share in her or his human life for an eternity of…?. There is a difference between humanity and divinity just as there is a difference between the material world and the spiritual world. The real question is – which world has priority?
B
buffalo
Guest
I would trust someone who held in their hands the Sacred Deposit of Faith no matter how old or how long ago.He wrote it over SIXTY years ago! I wouldnt trust or see a doctor who graduated from medical school that long ago. Would you?
BTW - the Church has been fighting evolution since its beginning.
What you and others on this thread are asking for is scientism, that is our flawed human reasoning of our observations means the should be Bible re-interpreted to suit.
No one in the years I have participated in these threads has ever made a convincing case it should. No one.
P
Petergee
Guest
She certainly has not. What she has been fighting is the false conclusions of atheism etc which SOME people later drew from the theory of evolution (but which Darwin and its other founders did NOT conclude).BTW - the Church has been fighting evolution since its beginning.
G
grannymh
Guest
God poured out His Divine Love upon our first parents.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Who sez?“Time” is used in a broader sense here, as from the beginning of creation.
(And, no, it isn’t.)
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
If he had the genetic evidence we have today, he would have written differently.
Now, how about responding to what I said?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Not so much:I would trust someone who held in their hands the Sacred Deposit of Faith no matter how old or how long ago.
BTW - the Church has been fighting evolution since its beginning.
July 2007, LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The Pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
G
grannymh
Guest
My apology. Did I misunderstand? As far as I know, genes will always be genes, so there is no difference between 1950 and 2050. In other words, polygenism will not change its definition no matter what specific research you present.If he had the genetic evidence we have today, he would have written differently.
Now, how about responding to what I said?
Catholics should not fear intimidation based on the “genetic evidence we have today”.
Those mountains of evidence and warehouses of research do not change polygenism into an acceptable substitution for human origin by two, real people.
A rose is a rose is a rose. Polygenism is polygenism is polygenism which is not acceptable when applied to human nature at the beginning of human history or in the last century, in this century, or in the next century.
Catholics should appreciate the benefits of natural science. But Catholics need not appreciate false information regarding human origin.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Nobody needs to say. Your argument is incongruent with its premises, and therefore it is false. Common sense doesn’t need to be dogmatically defined.Who sez?
If time is meant in the sense that you propose it to mean, then the spiritual order of creatures exist within time, again, in the sense that you propose to mean it. That is, that they are subject to the time/space continuum, and therefore possess a corporeal body as matter, rather than being purely spiritual. This is entirely contradictory to the material/spiritual dichotomy presented by the text.
If we take your premise to true, then spiritual creatures exist as corporeal creatures, which is false because spiritual creatures, by definition and explicitly contrasted with corporeal creatures, exist apart from corporeal creatures.“From the beginning of time made at once out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly…”
Now, it is not logically objectionable to consent to a preternatural or metaphysical interpretation of time, in that there is an understanding of time which supersedes the natural order (obviously, the prerogative being that the locale of that “time” is the spiritual order of creation). That is, a metaphysical understanding of time that goes even beyond the theory of Relativity. But adhering to this understanding contradicts what you’ve said thus far, because “from the beginning of time” it would be synonymous with “from the beginning of creation”, as “time” in this sense encompasses both the angelic and corporeal realms, as well as the composite of both (which is humanity).
What’s even more interesting is that Einstein didn’t discover the theory of Relativity until 1920. The third session of Vatican I took place in April, 1870. Time was a metaphysical concept until the theory of Relativity was discovered.
Your claim that “time” is meant in terms of “time/space continuum” cannot hold even within the hypothetical you are proposing. It is more fitting to use the phrase “from the beginning of creation” to interpret this, both for logical reasons, and for historical reasons.Time/space is finite, Anthony.
It follows, very clearly and logically, that the human person is a substantial union of body and spirit according to the documents of Vatican I, that is, over and against your hypothesis that Adam and Eve existed before time as spirits.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
In 1950 no one had mapped the human genome, understood the molecular clock or determined how mitochondrial DNA works or done an extensive cross-cultural, worldwide comparison of representative genomes. So, genes will always exist I suppose, however irrelevant that statement was, but they are not genetics, which is what I said.My apology. Did I misunderstand? As far as I know, genes will always be genes, so there is no difference between 1950 and 2050. In other words, polygenism will not change its definition no matter what specific research you present…
The Pope didn’t say that we all had to reject polygenism. He said that in that which is still speculative we do not embrace a certain way of looking at things. But it’s not speculative anymore.
As I said: ***if he had access to the genetics we have today he would have written differently. ***
Two individual Homo sapiens, one male and one female as a mated pair, did not give rise to the population of H. sap that inhabits the world today. That’s fact. And it’s way beyond question at this point.
Now, the OP’s question has apparently been answered to the OP’s satisfaction, you and Buffalo have nothing more to add than to keep repeating irrelevant links and quotes. I see no point in any further discussion here.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
OHHHHHHH.Nobody needs to say.
I thought we were discussing Church teaching. Guess not, just opining at one another. Well, we are actually far off-topic and I am done in here, so you have a nice day. In a few years, I hope, you’ll understand a lot more about mysticism and a lot less about fideism. Good luck and God bless.
B
buffalo
Guest
I have asked for the top three pieces of evidence now several times. No one has put it up.If he had the genetic evidence we have today, he would have written differently.
Now, how about responding to what I said?
B
buffalo
Guest
First off, no one argues against micro-evolution.Not so much:
Pope Benedict - "Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” [5]
What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me."
B
buffalo
Guest
** Pope Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason **
“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”
“The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.”
G
grannymh
Guest
The Catholic Church has just as much interest in the how of human origin as scientists. Therefore, I will continue discussion on polygenism/monogenism.In 1950 no one had mapped the human genome, understood the molecular clock or determined how mitochondrial DNA works or done an extensive cross-cultural, worldwide comparison of representative genomes. So, genes will always exist I suppose, however irrelevant that statement was, but they are not genetics, which is what I said.
The Pope didn’t say that we all had to reject polygenism. He said that in that which is still speculative we do not embrace a certain way of looking at things. But it’s not speculative anymore.
As I said: ***if he had access to the genetics we have today he would have written differently. ***
Two individual Homo sapiens, one male and one female as a mated pair, did not give rise to the population of H. sap that inhabits the world today. That’s fact. And it’s way beyond question at this point.
Now, the OP’s question has apparently been answered to the OP’s satisfaction, you and Buffalo have nothing more to add than to keep repeating irrelevant links and quotes. I see no point in any further discussion here.
I have in my hand the paper “Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences” published, July, 2011, in Nature. Nature is considered a premier journal. This is the paper’s first sentence. “The history of human population size is important for understanding human evolution.” Obviously, the goal of this landmark paper is to explore the how of human origin which is the same goal of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also explores human nature itself. Obviously, human nature follows from human origin.
The scientific exploration of human origin which was taking place in the 1930’s and 1940’s led to *Humani Generis. *Obviously, those who recognize the natural science references in the brilliant Humani Generis, will recognize that Pius XII was actually addressing the same basic issue which motivated this 2011 paper on current research about human origin. The issue then and now is still the how of human origin. For scientists, this issue still centers on genes or genetics if one prefers that term. Or genetic changes, etc., in the genome if one is reading science literature. For Catholics, the issue is one of Divine Revelation.
Pardon me. This sentence – “The Pope didn’t say that we all had to reject polygenism.” in post 191 is a popular misinterpretation of Humani Generis.
Pius XII did rule out polygenism as the source of human origin in the same manner as St. Paul in Romans 5: 12-21 (Source: Footnote 12, Humani Generis).
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
This is a rather novel idea isn’t it? Doesn’t scripture say:This isn’t what the Church teaches, iirc.
God created humankind in His Image - and God is not female or male, but purely spirit. Once these spiritual beings decided they wanted to be oned with God, to become like God, they had to be sent away, clothed in mortality (including flesh) and only able to return through death.
“God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and God said to them: Be
fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it”
Gen 1:27-28
and
“then the Lord fromed the man out of the dust of the ground…” Gen 2:7
These refer to man before the fall–male and female and formed out of the dust of the ground (substane not spirit). Isn’t this contrary to the sexless spirits you advocate? Please clarify how what you suggest is not contrary to Scripture and Catholic teaching. Thank you.
Peace,
Mark
F
Faith1960
Guest
How about you link us to current, up-to-date information by well respected anthropologists and other scientists (in other words, those with a good reputation who aren’t easily discredited with one or two quick Google searches) who debunk the idea that the Earth’s population never fell below 7,000 to 10,000 people?The Catholic Church has just as much interest in the how of human origin as scientists. Therefore, I will continue discussion on polygenism/monogenism.
I have in my hand the paper “Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences” published, July, 2011, in Nature. Nature is considered a premier journal. This is the paper’s first sentence. “The history of human population size is important for understanding human evolution.” Obviously, the goal of this landmark paper is to explore the how of human origin which is the same goal of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also explores human nature itself. Obviously, human nature follows from human origin.
The scientific exploration of human origin which was taking place in the 1930’s and 1940’s led to *Humani Generis. *Obviously, those who recognize the natural science references in the brilliant Humani Generis, will recognize that Pius XII was actually addressing the same basic issue which motivated this 2011 paper on current research about human origin. The issue then and now is still the how of human origin. For scientists, this issue still centers on genes or genetics if one prefers that term. Or genetic changes, etc., in the genome if one is reading science literature. For Catholics, the issue is one of Divine Revelation.
Pardon me. This sentence – “The Pope didn’t say that we all had to reject polygenism.” in post 191 is a popular misinterpretation of Humani Generis.
Pius XII did rule out polygenism as the source of human origin in the same manner as St. Paul in Romans 5: 12-21 (Source: Footnote 12, Humani Generis).
F
Faith1960
Guest
I found this online last night. catholicbridge.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.php
<<<<<We teach monogenism, that Adam and Eve were indeed our first parents. Catholic scientists and theologians are free to grapple with these difficult questions in their individual research. However, it would be considered wrong to teach it, because it has a moral impact on the faith and the nature of sin.
It is not contrary to the faith to believe that God created a species of creatures resembling humans through a series of evolutionary actions and then chose Adam and Eve into which to impart human souls, making them the only humans. What makes a human is the combination of a human body and a human soul. Animals do not sin. So even if there were a bunch of other creatures resembling humans running around, they would not be human unless God gave them souls, which would have only been given to two humans, Adam and Eve. It is worth noting that the scientific community embraced the idea of one set of parents (Mitochondrial Eve, Y-chromosomal Adam) in the 1990’s although they argue with each other about all kinds of details. Maybe science and religion will unravel this mystery at some point. I don’t know, but this is where I’m leaning right now.>>>>>
<<<<<We teach monogenism, that Adam and Eve were indeed our first parents. Catholic scientists and theologians are free to grapple with these difficult questions in their individual research. However, it would be considered wrong to teach it, because it has a moral impact on the faith and the nature of sin.
It is not contrary to the faith to believe that God created a species of creatures resembling humans through a series of evolutionary actions and then chose Adam and Eve into which to impart human souls, making them the only humans. What makes a human is the combination of a human body and a human soul. Animals do not sin. So even if there were a bunch of other creatures resembling humans running around, they would not be human unless God gave them souls, which would have only been given to two humans, Adam and Eve. It is worth noting that the scientific community embraced the idea of one set of parents (Mitochondrial Eve, Y-chromosomal Adam) in the 1990’s although they argue with each other about all kinds of details. Maybe science and religion will unravel this mystery at some point. I don’t know, but this is where I’m leaning right now.>>>>>
G
grannymh
Guest
I am having a difficult time figuring out which word the word it refers to. Unfortunately, I may not get back to the website right away due to some heavy commitments this weekend.I found this online last night. catholicbridge.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.php
<<<<<We teach monogenism, that Adam and Eve were indeed our first parents. Catholic scientists and theologians are free to grapple with these difficult questions in their individual research. However, it would be considered wrong to teach** it,** because it has a moral impact on the faith and the nature of sin.
The part in bold is what the media and faiths other than Catholic embraced. Catholics who understood the Adam and Eve doctrines recognized that Mitochondrial Eve had nothing to do with the Catholic teachings about our first parents. Even Wikipedia points out the difficulties of the research by 'Rebecca Cann et al.It is not contrary to the faith to believe that God created a species of creatures resembling humans through a series of evolutionary actions and then chose Adam and Eve into which to impart human souls, making them the only humans. What makes a human is the combination of a human body and a human soul. Animals do not sin. So even if there were a bunch of other creatures resembling humans running around, they would not be human unless God gave them souls, which would have only been given to two humans, Adam and Eve.** It is worth noting that the scientific community embraced the idea of one set of parents (Mitochondrial Eve, Y-chromosomal Adam) in the 1990’s although they argue with each other about all kinds of details. Maybe science and religion will unravel this mystery at some point. I don’t know, but this is where I’m leaning right now**.>>>>>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve Scroll down to common misconceptions.
I picked up the following sentence from somewhere on the link in post 199. “The big question that the Catholic Church asks when examining a scientific theory is “does it contradict Scripture?” which is infallible.”
This looks like a legitimate statement, but it is not the big nor the first question the Catholic Church asks when examining a scientific theory. Tonight, I am curious as to what other people see in this statement without going completely off topic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.