reconcile adam and eve

[Memaw]

and yet if the Pope is right and the scientists are right then we have a contradiction somewhere or at least an apparent one. The church is not lead by idiots please quit assuming they are. I am sure there is something written about this somewhere and Id be grateful to anyone who has something I can sink my teeth into. it is of personal interest to me and not something that harms my faith in the least but my faith would be further strengthened if the church has done some work on this.

Oh my! Did I say that or even “assume” it??? May you should ask an apologist. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Veector]

“The evidence seems to indicate humans evolved not from two people but from multiple people.” May God rebuke the devil. Amen.

 

[Memaw]

“The evidence seems to indicate humans evolved not from two people but from multiple people.” May God rebuke the devil. Amen.

And where did the “multiple” people come from?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[SonOfMan]

And where did the “multiple” people come from?? God Bless, Memaw

Apes.

 

[mikeabboud]

And where did the “multiple” people come from?? God Bless, Memaw

The Church teaches we come from two primordial beings the first humans and all else descend from this. I asked this question here because it is the apologetic forum. I was hoping for more then the church says it there for its true. The church also teaches that faith and reason are compatible. I came to my faith through reason. So when I have a question I must address it from a position of reason.There must be scholarly articles written on it and that is what I am really wanting to know. Does anyone know of any that address the apparent contradiction.

 

[Memaw]

“The evidence seems to indicate humans evolved not from two people but from multiple people.” May God rebuke the devil. Amen.

I read something many years ago and I kept a copy of it and it goes like this,

A billion or so years ago, in a geothermically heated pool of ooze, a chance gathering of chemicals was energized by lightning and a life form was created from which all supracomplex life forms, including humans, originated.
To believe this notion proffered by evolutionists, atheists, etc., one must believe that this “life form” was immediately able to ingest nourishment and turn it into energy, thus ensuring its survival. More important qualities, if this miracle in the mud was to survive, would have been the ability and drive to replicate and reproduce. Conceding these qualities to a clump of excited chemicals requires a greater leap of faith than believing in a God-creator.
Science has never witnessed or caused regenerative life to originate from nonliving chemicals. Conversely, it is science’s experience that regenerative life comes only from existing life. Therefore, a living entity (GOD) existing when life began on Earth, was most probability the origin of that life.

Food for thought!, God Bless, Memaw

 

[spiderweb]

All science can do is dig up remains of creatures and make theories about it. But even the remains of a human person dead only 100 years, can not tell us if that person had a rational soul. We just assume that if it appears human, then it is human in the same manner that we are today. In Genesis 2:15, it says that after making Adam, God “took man and placed him into the paradise of pleasure…” It is possible that there were many “manlike” animals in a physiological sense, but that doesn’t mean that they had a rational soul. When God made Adam, he gave him a rational soul which immediately seperates man from the rest of the creatures, regardless of how similar they are in appearance.

Even if archeologists found the bones of a monkey inside a cave filled with ancient artwork on the walls of the cave, this would not prove that the monkey drew the artwork. It could have just wandered in there to die. Bones of animals or humans, can not tell us if they had a rational human soul, or an animal soul.

A link to an article by Dr. Edward Feser that might be helpful.
strangenotions.com/monogenism-or-polygenism-the-question-of-human-origins/

 

[SonOfMan]

All science can do is dig up remains of creatures and make theories about it. But even the remains of a human person dead only 100 years, can not tell us if that person had a rational soul. We just assume that if it appears human, then it is human in the same manner that we are today. In Genesis 2:15, it says that after making Adam, God “took man and placed him into the paradise of pleasure…” It is possible that there were many “manlike” animals in a physiological sense, but that doesn’t mean that they had a rational soul. When God made Adam, he gave him a rational soul which immediately seperates man from the rest of the creatures, regardless of how similar they are in appearance.

Even if archeologists found the bones of a monkey inside a cave filled with ancient artwork on the walls of the cave, this would not prove that the monkey drew the artwork. It could have just wandered in there to die. Bones of animals or humans, can not tell us if they had a rational human soul, or an animal soul.

A link to an article by Dr. Edward Feser that might be helpful.
strangenotions.com/monogenism-or-polygenism-the-question-of-human-origins/

By the same token, we still cannot tell if humans have souls today, living or deceased. Then when you bring up the fact that the majority of humans on earth today contain Neanderthal genes, you imply that they are somehow less (rational soul) human, which circles back to the point about us not knowing whether they /wehave souls at all; human, animal, or partial rational souls.

By which methods do we detect whether something has a soul or not?

 

[mikeabboud]

I read something many years ago and I kept a copy of it and it goes like this,

A billion or so years ago, in a geothermically heated pool of ooze, a chance gathering of chemicals was energized by lightning and a life form was created from which all supracomplex life forms, including humans, originated.
To believe this notion proffered by evolutionists, atheists, etc., one must believe that this “life form” was immediately able to ingest nourishment and turn it into energy, thus ensuring its survival. More important qualities, if this miracle in the mud was to survive, would have been the ability and drive to replicate and reproduce. Conceding these qualities to a clump of excited chemicals requires a greater leap of faith than believing in a God-creator.
Science has never witnessed or caused regenerative life to originate from nonliving chemicals. Conversely, it is science’s experience that regenerative life comes only from existing life. Therefore, a living entity (GOD) existing when life began on Earth, was most probability the origin of that life.

Food for thought!, God Bless, Memaw

One of the reasons I am Catholic the other being the moral arguments for God

 

[grannymh]

The Church teaches we come from two primordial beings the first humans and all else descend from this. I asked this question here because it is the apologetic forum. I was hoping for more then the church says it there for its true. The church also teaches that faith and reason are compatible. I came to my faith through reason. So when I have a question I must address it from a position of reason.There must be scholarly articles written on it and that is what I am really wanting to know. Does anyone know of any that address the apparent contradiction.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

[http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Human-...9686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=14124676 70&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+spe cies++Bonnette](http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Human-...9686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=14124676 70&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+spe cies++Bonnette)

Informative website.
drbonnette.com/

The apparent “contradiction” is simply the difference between a random breeding humanizing population of hundreds to thousands and the Catholic doctrine of human origin which is a population of two. This was discussed in sections 35, 36, 37 of the Encyclical Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[mikeabboud]

By the same token, we still cannot tell if humans have souls today, living or deceased. Then when you bring up the fact that the majority of humans on earth today contain Neanderthal genes, you imply that they are somehow less (rational soul) human, which circles back to the point about us not knowing whether they /wehave souls at all; human, animal, or partial rational souls.

By which methods do we detect whether something has a soul or not?

Postulation of the existence of the soul belongs to theology and philosophy not science it is there you will have to search for your answer. It is something science can’t answer.

 

[mikeabboud]

All science can do is dig up remains of creatures and make theories about it. But even the remains of a human person dead only 100 years, can not tell us if that person had a rational soul. We just assume that if it appears human, then it is human in the same manner that we are today. In Genesis 2:15, it says that after making Adam, God “took man and placed him into the paradise of pleasure…” It is possible that there were many “manlike” animals in a physiological sense, but that doesn’t mean that they had a rational soul. When God made Adam, he gave him a rational soul which immediately seperates man from the rest of the creatures, regardless of how similar they are in appearance.

Even if archeologists found the bones of a monkey inside a cave filled with ancient artwork on the walls of the cave, this would not prove that the monkey drew the artwork. It could have just wandered in there to die. Bones of animals or humans, can not tell us if they had a rational human soul, or an animal soul.

A link to an article by Dr. Edward Feser that might be helpful.
strangenotions.com/monogenism-or-polygenism-the-question-of-human-origins/

That I think where we can begin to reconcile the two notions I have asked about. Thank you for the article if you know of more or anyone else Id love to read them.

 

[mikeabboud]

That I think where we can begin to reconcile the two notions I have asked about. Thank you for the article if you know of more or anyone else Id love to read them.

this is almost exactly something I envisioned would be the response thank you very much.

 

[SonOfMan]

Postulation of the existence of the soul belongs to theology and philosophy not science it is there you will have to search for your answer. It is something science can’t answer.

I’m not looking for a scientific answer, but a religious one.

If neanderthals are considered human by science, but not by religion, and since majority of humans alive today contain “non-human” genes, does that mean they are not fully human from a religious perspective? And from a religious perspective, if something is only partially human, does that mean they only have a partial soul?

I think that is where spiderweb’s post leads into when you make assertions that some creatures only looked human, but weren’t, and only the creatures with rational souls were humans.

 

[spiderweb]

By the same token, we still cannot tell if humans have souls today, living or deceased. Then when you bring up the fact that the majority of humans on earth today contain Neanderthal genes, you imply that they are somehow less (rational soul) human, which circles back to the point about us not knowing whether they /wehave souls at all; human, animal, or partial rational souls.

By which methods do we detect whether something has a soul or not?

Everything living has a soul as the soul is the principle of life. The soul is not something that can evolve because it is purely spiritual and not physical. It is not dependent upon DNA or genes, or whatever.

Animals do not have a rational soul because they cannot override their instincts. On the other hand, humans can override their instincts. An animal will never go on a diet, but humans can because we have a rational soul as opposed to an animal soul.

The rational soul can understand concepts that go beyond the physical realm. Concepts such as love, justice, mercy. These are not physical things. They can be demonstrated physically, but they are not in and of themselves physical. But we can understand these non physical realities because our soul is a spirit. Animals have no such concepts, because they only deal with the physical around them. Everything they know is brought to them through their senses. But even a human who can’t feel, taste, see, touch, etc. can still understand these spiritual realities.

Someone who inherits a genetic disease isn’t less of a person because of this. What makes a human a human is their spiritual soul, and not their physical biological makeup. All living things have soul (principal of life), but only the human soul is a spirit. The human spirit can know, love, and will, and act according to that. Animals only act on instinct.

Hope that’s helpful.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Genesis is silent on children of Adam and Eve other than Cain, Abel and Enoch. That doesn’t mean there weren’t more children. Scripture just discusses those three. It tells us Adam and Eve lived hundreds of years, they could have had hundreds of children.

Then if everyone on Earth is descended of Adam and Eve then there must have been a lot of incest in the beginning.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

But we have a pope declaring something as infallible that all humans descend from a primordial couple.

Was that statement actually made ex cathedra and did the Holy Father invoke the Doctrine of Infallibility when he said that? I don’t believe he did. Not everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is an infallible statement.

 

[grannymh]

Was that statement actually made ex cathedra and did the Holy Father invoke the Doctrine of Infallibility when he said that? I don’t believe he did. Not everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is an infallible statement.

The infallibility of Adam and Eve as the sole founders of humankind doctrine was declared ages ago according to the sources of Revealed Truth and the Teaching Authority of the Church. (Section 37, Footnote 12, Humani Generis Encyclical.

Paragraph 390 and paragraphs 415 - 419 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition repeat and explain the Catholic doctrines surrounding Adam and Eve’s reality as sole parents of the human species. .

The Holy Father did not have to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Michael_Francis]

*Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
*