Science & Religion

[buffalo]

That requires an unambiguous definition of a “human being”.

rossum

The Catholic church would understand this to be who we call Adam and Eve, our first parents who make us all brothers with equal dignity made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[grannymh]

Is it a Catholic teaching that Catholics HAVE to believe in a 10000 year old earth or the historical story of Jonah surviving 3 days in the stomach of a shark(or other large fish)?
I don’t think people lose faith and believe in scientism(does this word officially exist?). People have always questioned the story of Jonah as a story that actually took place because even 2000 years ago they thought it was a bit far-fetched.
Also I don’t get why you have the need to take every detail of the Bible as historical fact and can’t just accept some things as symbolism.

Catholics do not have to believe in a young earth, old earth, or middle earth. I am not familiar with Jonah.

 

[Lui]

Catholics do not have to believe in a young earth, old earth, or middle earth. I am not familiar with Jonah.

According to Buffalo you do unless I misunderstood him.

 

[StAnastasia]

Maybe it is the one statement that two human parents could not have founded humanity which is close to infallible?

I said there is no scientific evidence from genetics that substantiates your theory that “Adam” and “Eve” were historic individuals.

 

[tonyrey]

That requires an unambiguous definition of a “human being”.

rossum

A human being is a person, i.e. a rational being who can distinguish good from evil, has self-control and a capacity for unselfish love.

 

[buffalo]

I said there is no scientific evidence from genetics that substantiates your theory that “Adam” and “Eve” were historic individuals.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[StAnastasia]

As a Catholic you also must believe this. Are you a Catholic or aren’t you?

Yes/

Do you believe you have experienced the Body and Blood of Jesus when you receive Holy Communion?

Yes.

It is just plain silly to believe that God cannot be believed to exist if we cannot detect Him using scientific methods.

We are in 100% agreement in this.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, the down-the-road and around-the-curve assumption is that God does not exist, period.

It certainly seems as if God is considered to be a remote, disinterested Spectator who plays no part whatsoever in the drama that is being enacted on this minute planet!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

StAnastasia

I said there is no scientific evidence from genetics that substantiates your theory that “Adam” and “Eve” were historic individuals.

Nor is there any scientific evidence they were not historic individuals.

 

[rossum]

The Catholic church would understand this to be who we call Adam and Eve, our first parents who make us all brothers with equal dignity made in the image and likeness of God.

Which tells me nothing, unless you can give me the “likeness of God”. Does God have two arms? Humans have two arms, but so do Chimpanzees. Are God’s arms hairy? Chimp arms are hairier than human arms, but male humans generally have hairier arms than female humans. Where do we draw the line?

Or perhaps the “likeness of God” is not physical at all, in which case it is of no use in evaluating fossils or the physical evolution of the human body.

rossum

 

[rossum]

A human being is a person, i.e. a rational being who can distinguish good from evil, has self-control and a capacity for unselfish love.

And how do I apply this to a particular fossil I find? We are talking about the physical development of humans, and you are not giving me anything physical I can work with.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Evidence of impossibility is evidence of absence. It is impossible that the human population has fallen as low as two individuals since our separation from our LCA with the chimpanzees.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

According to Buffalo you do unless I misunderstood him.

I did some very brief checking on the Old Testament Book of Jonah. I can see why it made an impact on the Jewish people. The book’s issues of sin, repentance, and God’s mercy are told in a powerful way. Jonah, himself, rises up from his own darkness and disobedience to become the successful prophet. Was his darkness that of a whale or of his heart? The point of his alienation from God is clear regardless of an actual event or a symbolic event.

Jonah does not have the status of Adam which is probably why there is no specific doctrine about his being in the belly of a great fish. On the other hand, the story is true in terms of sin and repentance followed by the love and mercy of God.

Personally, I believe that the basic story of Jonah is true. Whether he was in a whale or hanging on driftwood is not an essential detail of belief.

 

[grannymh]

I said there is no scientific evidence from genetics that substantiates your theory that “Adam” and “Eve” were historic individuals.

In the real world, the issue of two founders of the human species is a true possibility.

When one actually studies the genetic “evidence” as to how it is obtained and the method of examining it, one can reasonably understand that the specific conclusion is a direct result of the particular research.

On the other hand, this same evidence would not warrant the jump or extrapolation to a universal conclusion which applies to every single day at every place on the whole globe going millions of years backwards. People with common sense can understand this in a New York minute.

When one applies this basic empirical method to human persons, one can come up with some particular conclusions from the individual evidence presented. However, the individual evidence is not sufficient to rule out every possibility, every single day, at every place on the whole globe going backwards millions of pre-history decades.

In other words, in spite of mountains of research papers, there is still the possibility that two, sole, true human beings founded the human species. That possibility is all that is needed for belief.

 

[Lui]

Nor is there any scientific evidence they were not historic individuals.

Here comes my Peter Pan theory again. There is no evidence that he never existed, so that means he must have existed.
I bet if Neverland was in the Bible Buffalo could cough up a perfect map that proves its location

 

[Lui]

Which tells me nothing, unless you can give me the “likeness of God”. Does God have two arms? Humans have two arms, but so do Chimpanzees. Are God’s arms hairy? Chimp arms are hairier than human arms, but male humans generally have hairier arms than female humans. Where do we draw the line?

Why do humans even have body hair remains? It doesn’t serve any purpose unless it is the remains of our ancestors who had a fur. Did God have to create Adam with body hair, toe nails(for what are they good?) and other features that are similar to primates? We even have the same body language as chimpanzees. Must be a coincidence then…

 

[grannymh]

Here comes my Peter Pan theory again. There is no evidence that he never existed, so that means he must have existed.
I bet if Neverland was in the Bible Buffalo could cough up a perfect map that proves its location

As I posted previously, no evidence of Peter Pan’s non-existence only means that there is the possibility that he existed.

Fortunately, science does not have to deal with Peter Pan.

What happens in real science is that the conclusion of research is limited by the evidence presented and the methods used to examine the evidence. When it comes to genetic evidence about human origin, the evidence itself is not sufficient to account for every happening, every day, every place around the world, going back into pre-history centuries. Therefore, the possibility exists that there are two, sole founders of all humanity.

Please note that the possibility of Adam and Eve’s existence is all that is needed for true belief.

 

[grannymh]

Which tells me nothing, unless you can give me the “likeness of God”. Does God have two arms? Humans have two arms, but so do Chimpanzees. Are God’s arms hairy? Chimp arms are hairier than human arms, but male humans generally have hairier arms than female humans. Where do we draw the line?

Or perhaps the “likeness of God” is not physical at all, in which case it is of no use in evaluating fossils or the physical evolution of the human body.

rossum

Being in the “image of God” refers to the fact that human nature in itself is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds. Because of our spiritual souls, we can share in the life of a transcendent, pure spirit, personal God.

 

[buffalo]

Evidence of impossibility is evidence of absence. It is impossible that the human population has fallen as low as two individuals since our separation from our LCA with the chimpanzees.

rossum

According to most evo’s nothing is impossible for evolution. (One can see that in the storytelling that goes on)

Another assumption. It is speculated that chimps and humans split. I do not agree we had any separation from the chimps and more science is coming in to back my position. Chimp vs human similarity is now below 70%.

 

[Lui]

As I posted previously, no evidence of Peter Pan’s non-existence only means that there is the possibility that he existed.

Fortunately, science does not have to deal with Peter Pan.

I know. I just mention it as an example to the logic: science can’t prove that Adam and Eve didn’t exist.
My point is: so what if science can’t prove if Adam and Eve never existed? They also can’t prove that Bozo the Clown, Willy Wonka or Tinkerbell didn’t exist. What does that prove?