T
TheLittleLady
Guest
God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul, so, sometime after the bodily creation of our first parent.
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.
O
o_mlly
Guest
We cannot observe the rational soul but we can observe effects that can safely be attributed to such a soul. The unique human power of abstraction may be evidenced in artifacts that employ symbolism. The science in dating the material substrates (organic or inorganic) associated with these artifacts is indirect and is its own science. Identifying that which is truly abstract art and dating the same are often contested within the scientific community of experts.What are thoughts on when people actually became people and started having a soul?
E
EndTimes
Guest
Exactly… Questions re: When? Seem to have very little actual relevance to Christians; do they?God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul, so, sometime after the bodily creation of our first parent.
Last edited:
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Genesis does not say thisI don’t believe the Earth was created in 7 days 10,000 years ago (give or take a few thousand years) per what Genesis says,
G
gama232
Guest
There is no evidence for human beings without souls. It is not part of Catholic teaching. The false idea that there were men that were not born from the first man, Adam, is a popular but fictional idea. Regardless of how old the earth is, God created man and created Eve from Adam’s side. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That was a testimony and example of God’s power, which is not limited to the events in Genesis. Keep in mind, when Adam and Eve broke the commandment given to them by God, they and all Creation suffered.
E
EndTimes
Guest
And sometimes it’s said that a day is like a thousand years.Genesis does not say this
Thing is. Catholics are free to believe whatever many years -
Those who attack Christianity from via the ‘day’ angle - fall flat …
_
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
It’s all in the original meaning and translations of day. The church has stated we are free to believe creation or evolution or both. The church has not defined the original
meaning of the word day, no one has a definitive answer to that, there are theories floating around
meaning of the word day, no one has a definitive answer to that, there are theories floating around
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
“evolution” itself has varied definitions - aka a plurality of ‘theories’ according to St. Pope JP II…It’s all in the original meaning and translations of day. The church has stated we are free to believe creation or evolution or both. The church has not defined the original
meaning of the word day, no one has a definitive answer to that, there are theories floating around
And any theory which excludes God - is unacceptable.
)_
H
Hightop
Guest
Interesting subject. My thoughts upon learning about evolution are that God gave 2 humans, Adam and Eve, a soul. That would account for the other people mentioned in Genesis in the time before the flood. Just my theory though.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Not really sure what you are saying to me in respect to my post?
R
RepetantCatholic
Guest
No, philosophically I can reject the whole claim. So Darwinism addresses what happens when life develops as you say. OK, the development of life is abiogenesis. So Darwinism is of no use especially since as you write there have been no developments for the last 10,000 years. OK, so it can’t explain the plight of contemporary man or our state of consciousness for the last 10,000 years. The theory has no use.Not a matter of “can’t confront” but rather “lies outside the theory”. Theory of Evolution speaks only to development of life, not origin.
And, yah, Darwinists will say that Darwinism is indiscriminate of better or worse, it’s just survival of the fit and sexual selection, but after a little bit of prodding they will show their inherent Social Darwinism when it comes to their fellow man of other races or within their own race on questions of IQ.
Again, the assumption is that methods of measuring them are without error like carbon dating and that known properties are certainly known and not assumed.No assumption involved - just use of known properties of matter to determine the age of objects.
Either way I don’t know if you are a Catholic or if you are just some Atheists that lurks here. But read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structures of Scientific Revolution. Again, I don’t deny climate change so it could be we are looking at our last few generations unless man can adjust or find solutions through technology. But for me Darwinism comes from Darwin and leads to many theological errors. But it’s a political issue and everyone wants to be smart. I would rather be wise and Holy.
R
RepetantCatholic
Guest
Also, what I used to tell atheists when I used to argue with them is that in general from my experience of Academia Scientists condemn themselves through Darwinism. As often times they don’t appear to be fit for the common environment of man and most of the times they are not sexually selected and if they are the mate they are with doesn’t produce the best progeny. So, even by their own theories their proper course would be to turn to nihilism.
And I used to tell atheists who felt strongly that their descendants were neanderthals that, that may be true but that’s their descendants not mine or everyone else’s.
And I used to tell atheists who felt strongly that their descendants were neanderthals that, that may be true but that’s their descendants not mine or everyone else’s.
G
gama232
Guest
Well said. Regarding climate change, the technology exists now to help alleviate the problem but first off, no one wants to pay for it. Secondly, climatologists are concerned about making radical changes that might imbalance a rather complex system.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
By which translation? Where is the statement that day = 24 hrs?
Here is an example of the issues of translating from the original language. In Gen 1:26 the word Adam is encountered. There are a few translations for this word, Adam as a specific person, or Adam as humankind. There is no definite article with the word Adam. That means it is not referring to a specific person, but to humankind. Chapter 1 was written much later then Chapter 2 but they both contain creation stories. They are written very differently for different audiences. Chapter 1 is oral tradition written later. This is exemplified by the poetry , the repeated refrains , and God saw that it was good’, ‘the evening and morning of the 1st, …2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th days’
Here is an example of the issues of translating from the original language. In Gen 1:26 the word Adam is encountered. There are a few translations for this word, Adam as a specific person, or Adam as humankind. There is no definite article with the word Adam. That means it is not referring to a specific person, but to humankind. Chapter 1 was written much later then Chapter 2 but they both contain creation stories. They are written very differently for different audiences. Chapter 1 is oral tradition written later. This is exemplified by the poetry , the repeated refrains , and God saw that it was good’, ‘the evening and morning of the 1st, …2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th days’
Last edited:
B
Buckeye1010
Guest
Ah…great way to put it, with Adam representing human or mankind. I never thought of it that way. So would his sons then represent just continuing generations as a whole…like Cain and Abel?
D
Dan123
Guest
Natural selection isn’t affected by what you think the best progeny would be. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts.Also, what I used to tell atheists when I used to argue with them is that in general from my experience of Academia Scientists condemn themselves through Darwinism. As often times they don’t appear to be fit for the common environment of man and most of the times they are not sexually selected and if they are the mate they are with doesn’t produce the best progeny.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Nope. Abiogenesis has to do with the origin of life. Evolution only comes into play once life exists.OK, the development of life is abiogenesis
Correct. Evolution is silent on things that it cannot track, such as thought processes. No one who knows what they are talking about ever claimed that the theory was useful for that anyway. It can look at the relative size of brain cavities in skulls, and therefore can infer relative intelligence, or at lest capacity for intelligence, but not what went on inside that brain.OK, so it can’t explain the plight of contemporary man or our state of consciousness for the last 10,000 years.
Unsupported assertion. Not all people who understand and use the Theory of Evolution extend that to social issues. If they do, they are stretching it to a place it was not intended to go.inherent Social Darwinism
Nope. We know there are errors, and we know what can cause the errors, and the errors are accounted for. That is why a date determined by, for example, C-14 dating is given with a range. We also know that C-14 dating is only useful for a certain number of years (I don’t know offhand what the maximum is, but it is well known) because what it is measuring is so small as to introduce excess sample errors.methods of measuring them are without error
You can easily look at my profile if you are curious. And lurking implies just watching without participating. That definitely does not describe me.I don’t know if you are a Catholic or if you are just some Atheists that lurks here
Being a scientific theory, evolution is silent on theological matters. If you are finding theological errors, perhaps you are reading more into it that what is actually there, or listening to people who don’t understand it.comes from Darwin and leads to many theological errors
Scientists are as widely varied as any other group of people. The stereotype of the socially inept hopeless nerd is as false as the stereotype of the dumb jock.in general from my experience of Academia Scientists condemn themselves through Darwinism
I think you have that backwards. Descendants come after; ancestors come before.descendants were neanderthals
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Apologies… It’s as an addendum…Not really sure what you are saying to me in respect to my post?
E
EndTimes
Guest
Humans are not descendants of neandertals…I think you have that backwards. Descendants come after; ancestors come before.
A
Allyson
Guest
All modern humans who are not native to Africa have Neanderthal ancestors. It also appears that there may have been some gene exchange events back into Africa, but the levels there are low.Humans are not descendants of neandertals…
- Status
- Not open for further replies.