Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Fall of Man is an actual primeval event.

Scientific Fact? Since almost the time of Darwin - self-appointed 'Evolutionists" have splattered classroom books with so-called Science Truisms which are later found to be Hoaxes…

Throughout the 20th Century - Darwinism’s Origin rested entirely upon the non-science of Similarity of Skeletons aka a hiSTORYcal science.

Even Neanderthal was taught as SCIENCE FACT - As the Immediate predesessor of Man…
Statues of him in museums… IN science lit - taught to generations…
UNTIL - around 200O AD - empirical science showed that that notion was/is totally false…

The IMO Dishonest Darwinists quietly kicked N off of the ever-changing fuzzy tree…

And scrambled in damage control with a series of new explanations

If any had had any notion of the mechanism of genetics, they’d know that neanderthal and any before him - could never ever have mutationally transitioned in the manner shown by dem bones.

Which is why Darwin - who knew his bones - would laugh at so-called top-shelf evolutionists of today

Which is why today - any who have a certain sufficient knowledge of some bio-sciences - reject those who try to peddle notions which are adverse to even the Gospel of Jesus - which acknowledges Adam

Humani Genenis remains standing 😃
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
When all else fails, this. buffalo has presented clear Church teaching anyone can check.
Click to expand...
I have an MA in Theology, and did a semester of independent study on the Church Fathers on Creation. I literally spent years thinking about Church teaching on creation. So, there is that. But I was not responding to buffalo on his theological view in the comment you are responding to. I was referring to his loosey goosey understanding of the process of evolution. Separate subject.
gama232 said:
This thread is a “what people want to hear” thread. There is no debate. The Church is wrong. Right?
Click to expand...
No on all accounts. This is a thread for serious discussion. The Church is not nearly as fideistic as you are. Did you see my comment earlier about development of doctrine?
EndTimes said:
Which is why today - any who have a certain sufficient knowledge of some bio-sciences - reject those who try to peddle notions which are adverse to even the Gospel of Jesus - which acknowledges Adam
Click to expand...
Your whole comment is just a series of strawmen.
gama232 said:
The genome has been sequenced and they can’t read it. I read science journals related to that and here and there, a few clues. And more questions. You would think that by 2020, they would have figured out cancer. They haven’t. They throw drug combinations at it much like they did in the 20th Century, and a few stick, many don’t.
Click to expand...
Are you also sad that there are no flying cars? You have some really unrealistic expectations.

So, @buffalo, @gama232, and @EndTimes, what are your thoughts on the development of doctrine?
 
There is no desire to “develop doctrine,” only a desire to modify it to suit a particular view. The Church has the authority to interpret Scripture correctly, and like those people Pope Pius XII referred to, error is being promoted today under the cover of “development of doctrine.” It is clear that Church doctrine, according to a few, can only ‘develop’ the way they want it to. Jesus Christ promised He would protect His bride.
 
For you @gama232 and @buffalo and @EndTimes See a prior discussion I was in on dogma, doctrine, and development of doctrine. It is only 23 posts, so you can easily read it all. Pay particular attention to the last comment.
40.png
Dogma, what is the meaning and purpose? Eastern Catholicism
In another thread someone made a statement about the lack of new dogmas in the Orthodox Church. and look at the Orthodox now, they dont want to define even one new single dogma, after 1000 years, where is the “feed my sheep” instruction given by the Lord? feed my sheep with old food? :eek: What I see in this post is a dogmatic mentality that sees the definition of dogma as the greatest act of the Church. What is greater than the definition of a new dogma? Through dogma we gain knowledge of G…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
The second link is explicitly concerned with intelligent design.
Click to expand...
Please post the actual link so I can understand the one’s you are speaking of. I would love to go over these with you in more detail.
Click to expand...

“Lucky descendants of this creature, including today’s salamanders or zebrafish, can still perform the feat, but humans lost much of their regenerative power over millions of years of evolution.” My emphasis.

https://www.amazon.com/First-Gene-Programming-Messaging-Control/dp/0965798895
This is a book by David L Abel. His proposals are based on the planet being billions of years old.

Please explain why you want us to accept what these people say when you don’t accept it yourself?
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
The last two lines of the last post are relevant. Anything else? No.
Click to expand...
As I reread that thread, I really miss that level of thoughtful response. I think only one of those people is currently active besides me.

But, did you note my understanding of “development of doctrine?” It is not what you described above. Do you agree that the Church grows in its understanding of the faith handed down to the Apostles?
 
Thoughts on the last comment in the old thread? I do not think it fits quite with your understanding.
 
Last edited:
The Church has been asked questions since its founding. A number are found in the Bible. The Church explains and clarifies, but it avoids error. It avoids what is rightly called novelty. It is not afraid to call some “revilers of the faith.” Doctrine can only build on the foundation and very carefully. Science, so called, as Pope Pius XII wrote: “… provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

The Church today will be no less vigilant against grave error.
 
Dovekin said:
How do you know neither Neanderthals nor Denisovans are children of Adam?
Click to expand...
If you care to believe that they are although you cannot know - that’s your intent -

I’ve more to concern myself with than spending 24/7 on Humani Generis… 🙂

Anything else?
 
I have no idea what you mean. Most people here only want things their way based on purely human knowledge while ignoring Divine revelation. The Church cannot ignore that.
 
Are you adopting polygenism by declaring neanderthals not human?

I have a hard time understanding your notes, they often seem like a mish mash of questionable assertions with the obvious. I am just wondering why you bothered to impugn the N&D? I thought it might mean something.
 
gama232 said:
The Church has been asked questions since its founding. A number are found in the Bible. The Church explains and clarifies, but it avoids error. It avoids what is rightly called novelty. It is not afraid to call some “revilers of the faith.” Doctrine can only build on the foundation and very carefully. Science, so called, as Pope Pius XII wrote: “… provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

The Church today will be no less vigilant against grave error.
Click to expand...
This does not really address the meat of my questions:
Allyson said:
But, did you note my understanding of “development of doctrine?” It is not what you described above. Do you agree that the Church grows in its understanding of the faith handed down to the Apostles?
Click to expand...
Allyson said:
Thoughts on the last comment in the old thread? I do not think it fits quite with your understanding.
Click to expand...
 
Dovekin said:
Are you adopting polygenism by declaring neanderthals not human?

I have a hard time understanding your notes, they often seem like a mish mash of questionable assertions with the obvious. I am just wondering why you bothered to impugn the N&D? I thought it might mean something.
Click to expand...
I come here periodically and are genuinely amazed
at how the same some go on forever
attempting to disprove what is not disproveable… :roll_eyes:

MeanWhile - Adam and Eve were/are the first Children of God…

AND - The Fall of Man - aka Original Sin - was an actual historical event

AS was the need for the Redeemer - Messiah Jesus -

Anything Else?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top