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.
Freddy said:
40.png
gama232:
You are confused only because you have assumed a specific date range for the age of the earth that I have never mentioned.
Click to expand...
From everything you have ever posted (over a very long time) it is plain that you believe the earth to be a few thousand years old. That age has been used in very many posts in which you have been involved and you have never once denied it.

You believe that the bible is to be read literaly and creation happened over a six day period.

If that is not the case then here is your opportunity to put the record straight once and for all.
Click to expand...
@gama232 I also want to know what your real number is, because your response to @Freddy sidestepped the issue and gave a stronger basis for assuming that you believe in a short earth. It would have been easier to set the record straight by just giving the figure you accept as true.
 
buffalo said:
I could not resist. More soft tissue finds. Either they are not that old or a huge age adjustment is in order for how long soft tissue could last against all of the past denials. 😀

Cartilage cells, chromosomes and DNA preserved in 75 million-year-old baby duck-billed dinosaur’’​

Click to expand...
I did hear about this, and I am excited to see just how much is actually preserved. We have known about soft-tissue preservation for a while now, and that was also an unexpected discovery. The scientist who first made the discovery, Mary Schweitzer, is a Christian who hates when young earthers misrepresent her work for their agenda.

One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. Still, it’s not surprising they’ve reacted this way—the bone that I first studied I got from Jack, and when I gave him our initial results he was rather angry—I called him a few times and by my third call he said, “Dammit Mary the creationists are just going to love you.” But I said, “This is just what the data say— I’m not making it up.”
Click to expand...
Not expecting DNA is different from denying it is possible. At one point it was not thought that we would not be successful extracting DNA from bones 10’s of thousands of years old - when I was in college. I was hopeful that it would happen, and it did! But, it does not mean that the earth is not old. It is in fact very old. What we have now is ever improving technology that can show us what naturalists like Darwin would have dreamed of knowing. This is why science education is important.

 
Allyson said:
I am still curious about how you would have phrased my OP.
Click to expand...
Reconciling Humani Generis with the abiogenesis hypothesis that shows how a primordial soup can explain all life.

This prebiotic evolution hypothesis, only ~ 80 years old, is now in the dustbin of science. No need to reconcile to speculations; time will tell. Get back to me in 2040.
 
o_mlly said:
This prebiotic evolution hypothesis, only ~ 80 years old, is now in the dustbin of science.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Science has made progress in the last 80 years. For example, looking at the chemical formation of many organic molecules in conditions like those on the early earth. We know how amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers, and short RNA strands (many of which show chemical activity as ribozymes) formed.

Yes, there is still a lot of work to to, but progress has been made and is still being made. Becker’s paper on purine formation was published in 2016 for example.
 
o_mlly said:
Reconciling Humani Generis with the abiogenesis hypothesis that shows how a primordial soup can explain all life.
Click to expand...
Thank you! It is an interesting question. Abiogenesis is a completely different topic from the evolutionary issue I raised so my question would not really be answered by yours; however, I can see why you would consider it a more fundamental question.

I think that one is easily answered. The Church just teaches that creation is ex nihilo. That is a metaphysical statement; not a statement about the physics or chemistry behind it. My question addresses life after its creation; not how it was created. I just watched an interesting documentary about abiogenesis this week. Although denial of progress made in understanding abiogenesis is a common canard among those who reject evolution, it is certainly NOT that case that no progress has been made, as @rossum said. There is a sort of symbiotic relationship between the formation of life and the formation of some rocks and minerals. I have linked the video for you. 🙂

 
False. It is completely connected. It cannot be not connected. Life never comes from non-life.

I hope someone contacts me with the recipe for making life in a test tube.
 
Last edited:
Trust me when I say they will figure out a way to make DNA last 65 million years. They have to.
 
I have been reading technical journals for decades. I understand factual information as opposed to speculation. Right now, based on all the evidence, including posts on this forum, it turns out the only use evolution has is to explain man as nothing. Nothing special. If you look, you can find articles saying that man is not exceptional – especially compared to other animals. This is the exact opposite of the truth.

You/man = chemicals. Nothing more. Uh… no.
 
Last edited:
Allyson said:
Thank you! It is an interesting question. Abiogenesis is a completely different topic from the evolutionary issue I raised …
Click to expand...
I posted not to introduce a new topic but, in structure, show why theology does not require reconciliation with novel scientific positions.

If those who continue to pursue the “primordial soup” hypothesis are successful then success would not necessarily exclude creation accounts (second causes) but would uphold the intelligent design hypothesis, i.e., life from only life. Simultaneous cheers and boos from sideline evolutionist believers?
 
Last edited:
gama232 said:
Right now, based on all the evidence, including posts on this forum, it turns out the only use evolution has is to explain man as nothing. Nothing special. If you look, you can find articles saying that man is not exceptional – especially compared to other animals. This is the exact opposite of the truth.

You/man = chemicals. Nothing more. Uh… no.
Click to expand...
No one in this thread has made such a claim. Personally, I think the formation of life from non-life is fascinating and amazing: not ho-hum hum-drum reductionism. There is much to wonder at.
 
Last edited:
As I wrote earlier, I considered being a chemist. I understand chemistry and the kinds of things chemists do. There are various jobs a chemist could take. That said, this idea is based on a false premise. A materialist/reductionist view of man that is not compatible with the faith. So, whatever may be discovered, life cannot come from non-life.
 
o_mlly said:
If those who continue to pursue the “primordial soup” hypothesis are successful then success would not necessarily exclude creation accounts (second causes) but would uphold the intelligent design hypothesis, i.e., life from only life.
Click to expand...
Exactly, a creation account - i.e. good theology - would not be excluded. Intelligent design as a theological position - not ID science/Creation Science - is fine as a metaphysical proposition that does not want to manipulate the science to an agenda. A believer should not fear what science can tell us, and we should not warp science to fit our view. Rather, it should draw us to a deeper understanding.
o_mlly said:
I posted not to introduce a new topic but, in structure, show why theology does not require reconciliation with novel scientific positions.
Click to expand...
I totally get that. However, abiogenesis is less problematic when it comes to the theological proposition. The more definitive theological proposition is “two first parents.” Genetically this is not going to be the case, so that is why the question is raised. It is not easily dismissed as a "novel scientific proposition.
 
Science has no business in theology. It has no competence there. Which makes any proposition about two first parents into bending science into an area it does not address as science.
 
gama232 said:
Science has no business in theology. It has no competence there.
Click to expand...
I have said repeatedly in this thread that science does not examine claims about the supernatural. So, science does not speak to the existence of the soul.
gama232 said:
Which makes any proposition about two first parents into bending science into an area it does not address as science.
Click to expand...
However, insofar as we are natural being, yes, science does speak to who we are and where we came from.

Is it reasonable to expect a person to hold conflicting beliefs about the world?
 
What is most reasonable is direct revelation from God. That is the starting point. That is also the final filter for any scientific claims, as fully addressed in the document, Communion and Stewardship. Reading that document first provides the correct way to view our beliefs in their proper context.
 
gama232 said:
That said, this idea is based on a false premise. A materialist/reductionist view of man that is not compatible with the faith. So, whatever may be discovered, life cannot come from non-life.
Click to expand...
Stop straw-manning. Ex nihilo does not exclude God from making life from non-life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top