The 867th Thread on Evolution: I counted

[jmcrae]

sigh

…

long pause, then another sigh

I hate being confused. Stupid Darwin, always givin’ me headaches… I’m exasperated trying to get a grip on what to believe right now. If we can’t believe in the theory I stated, then I don’t know what to think. The endowment theory has too many holes if whole legions of creatures identical to humans just died off when Adam and Eve showed up (by unknown means, by the way).

This is why I don’t actually think that’s what happened. I also don’t think there was anyone else around for Adam and Eve to interbreed with, and that’s why they two became man and wife - because they were alone in the world - the only humans - and had only each other. Of course, they also had a perfect relationship with God, and He was able to guide them and teach them what they needed to learn, in order to survive and prosper.

It occurs to me, however, that the idea that Adam and Eve’s descendents, if interbred with human look-alikes, would only be half-human is incorrect, though. “Human” is defined by spirit …

And spirit cannot be inherited, unless it is in some way connected to the soul - but only a human being has a soul. The non-human look-alikes could not have had spiritual souls.

This means that there has to be something distinctive about the physical nature of human beings that causes them to be spiritual beings, because pure spirit, being non-physical, can’t be inherited physically - after all, we cannot inherit our parents’ faith; we must grow our own. In the same way, there is something distinct about the human soul (the animating principle of the human body) that causes it to be immortal and spiritual, as opposed to the natural souls of animals, which vanish at the moment of the animal’s death - which means that there is something about the human form that is intrinsically spiritual and intrinsically immortal. Meaning that neither Adam and Eve, nor their children, could have successfully bred with non-humans to give birth to human beings.

 

[wildleafblower]

Ed cannot seem to maintain a position. He’s thoroughly against any evolution then when confronted, says that well maybe “some form” of evolution is true, but only if it agrees that God is the causal agent. He has been trapped intellectually. But I think I am seeing his real point. He doesnt and will never believe in evolution because it disturbs his personal beliefs, so he will insist that he can’t believe evolution unless and until it gains a God component. He knows of course that science rightly makes no statement about the divine, so he never ever has to accede to evolution. It’s circular argument of course, but the stubborness of the fundamentalist is not to be trifled with.

SpiritMeadow, with all due respect to you and Ed (edwest2), please take into consideration the usage of the word fundamentalist. I noticed elsewhere in your most recent postings to the board a lack of comprehension for the usage of the word fundamentalist you SHOULD read the following:

ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
WORLD CATHOLIC FEDERATION FOR THE BIBLICAL APOSTOLATE
Monday, 7 April 1986

*At the same time, an adequate formation for the biblical apostolate directs attention to the unity of all the books of the Bible and takes into account the living Traditional of the Church. In this way, it is possible to avoid a narrow fundamentalism which distorts the whole truth and also possible to resist the temptation to place one’s personal interpretation above or even in opposition to the authentic interpretation of God’s word which belongs exclusively to the Bishops of the Church in union with the Pope. *
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/april/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19860407_apostolato-biblico_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...jp-ii_spe_19860407_apostolato-biblico_en.html

My suggestion to you SpiritMeadow is to retreive from the Vatican what I have continuously proposed in many messages on different topics. Can you tell me what are the three sources I have provided over and over and over again? Thank you.

 

[newbetx]

sigh

…

long pause, then another sigh

I hate being confused. Stupid Darwin, always givin’ me headaches… I’m exasperated trying to get a grip on what to believe right now. If we can’t believe in the theory I stated, then I don’t know what to think. The endowment theory has too many holes if whole legions of creatures identical to humans just died off when Adam and Eve showed up (by unknown means, by the way).

It occurs to me, however, that the idea that Adam and Eve’s descendents, if interbred with human look-alikes, would only be half-human is incorrect, though. “Human” is defined by spirit, not solely by physical features (which would in any case be retained without glich). Really, think about it: The LA’s (look-alikes) would be just as homo sapien as Adam and Eve–in other words, identical biologically speaking. Adam and Eve would be endowed with spirits, which their children’s children, even if interbred, would have… Thus, they wouldn’t be “half-human,” as you erroneously said. They would have all the bodily makeup of a human, and all the spiritual requirements because of Adam and Eve. The rebuttal seems flawed and the alleged errors with this theory are superficial at best.

If this view is heretical, please tell me why… but your reasoning is flawed as far as I can see.

Truthinator,

Take heart with the assertion that God created all things and how things work. That exploring HOW things work is to get a greater appreciation for God. Not a lessor one as people who misunderstand science might think.

I guess I think I need to believe in the original Adam and Eve so that the TOB stuff makes sense. And to wonder what happened to all those other proto-humans (LA’s or humans without a soul), the story of Cain and Abel might give us a clue. Murder, genocide, etc has been going on for millenia from those under the influence of original sin.

And I don’t go with the “half-human” assumption either because only God can provide a soul. Something done at conception, I understand? Either one has one or not.

The Church gives us certain freedoms of belief. If the literal interpretation of Genesis is what one wants to believe. Fine. If that doesn’t add up to you, then by all means, keep asking “How?” And praise God as you go.

Why is it that when we are given no choice, we scream for it and when we are given choice, we demand that there shouldn’t be any?

 

[edwest2]

Okay so you manage to point out that i was wrong about the aztects yet there is no response to the complete illogical nature of humans existing the same time period as dinosaurs?

Illogical? What is illogical about it?

God bless,
Ed

 

[jmcrae]

Okay so you manage to point out that i was wrong about the aztects yet there is no response to the complete illogical nature of humans existing the same time period as dinosaurs?

First, I have no idea whether dinosaurs were still around at the time of the creation of human beings; I’m not a 6-day literalist.

Secondly, I myself live alongside grizzly bears, cougars, and other large predators - they are alive, and so am I. Human beings have the capacity to learn how to live among dangerous animals, mostly without either one getting hurt. I don’t know why it would have been different for humans who lived among dinosaurs, if they ever did.

 

[buffalo]

Did anyone catch “The Journey of Man” last night on PBS.

Fill me in.

But, I got the jist that all Humans are descended form one male 60,000 yeasrs ago.

 

[Orogeny]

Did anyone catch “The Journey of Man” last night on PBS.

Fill me in.

But, I got the jist that all Humans are descended form one male 60,000 yeasrs ago.

I was watching PBS last night, but it was the Crossroads concert Eric Clapton hosts each year. Great concert, but I can’t help you with the Journey of Man show.

Peace

Tim

 

[Abbadon]

If your not a 6 day literlist i guess it doesn’t realy matter that much. But still the bible doesn’t really give any information about these creatures. It’s almost as if god forgot to mention them. I do remeber a quote about dragons…

Well since you don’t litererly belive in the creation story in the bible doesnt htat mean that nothing in the bible can be take nliterely?

And you give examples of modern day predetors as if they can possibly compare to dinosaurs. Even dinosaurs at the same scale were smarter and far deadlier than any modern day large predetor. Also you cannot compare survival today to the oh my god we got kicked out of eden and were naked and we have nothing.

Hey thats another thing, how do you get kicked out of somewhere that doesnt exist? We havent found eden did god destroy it?

 

[jmcrae]

If your not a 6 day literlist i guess it doesn’t realy matter that much. But still the bible doesn’t really give any information about these creatures. It’s almost as if god forgot to mention them. I do remeber a quote about dragons…

You are thinking of Leviathan. I suppose Leviathan could have been a dinosaur.

Well since you don’t litererly belive in the creation story in the bible doesnt htat mean that nothing in the bible can be take nliterely?

No, it just means that the first few chapters of Genesis use highly symbolic language to convey certain realities to us - chiefly, that God created everything that is, and that the human race is descended from one man and one woman, who broke their relationship with God, and caused all of us to be born without a relationship with God - this initial lack of a relationship with God is what we call “Original Sin.”

(Does the fact that the children’s poetry section in your newspaper contains fanciful material, probably including material about faeries and dragons, mean that you can’t believe anything on the front page? Oh, wait; that might not be the best example. Still, you know what I mean, right? )

And you give examples of modern day predetors as if they can possibly compare to dinosaurs. Even dinosaurs at the same scale were smarter and far deadlier than any modern day large predetor. Also you cannot compare survival today to the oh my god we got kicked out of eden and were naked and we have nothing.

Re-read the story. God provided them with clothing and with the means to survive.

Hey thats another thing, how do you get kicked out of somewhere that doesnt exist? We havent found eden did god destroy it?

Small-t tradition holds that Eden was in northwestern Iraq. The area is currently an uninhabitable desert.

 

[buffalo]

You are thinking of Leviathan. I suppose Leviathan could have been a dinosaur.



No, it just means that the first few chapters of Genesis use highly symbolic language to convey certain realities to us - chiefly, that God created everything that is, and that the human race is descended from one man and one woman, who broke their relationship with God, and caused all of us to be born without a relationship with God - this initial lack of a relationship with God is what we call “Original Sin.”

(Does the fact that the children’s poetry section in your newspaper contains fanciful material, probably including material about faeries and dragons, mean that you can’t believe anything on the front page? Oh, wait; that might not be the best example. Still, you know what I mean, right? )

Re-read the story. God provided them with clothing and with the means to survive.

Small-t tradition holds that Eden was in northwestern Iraq. The area is currently an uninhabitable desert.

There are 8 points of Genesis:

Which include:

God created everything
God created us
God created the first man
GOd created the first woman from the first man

I think it’s all in here: Catholics and the Bible

 

[Sideline]

Hey thats another thing, how do you get kicked out of somewhere that doesnt exist? We havent found eden did god destroy it?

To be fair, finding a garden that’s at least six thousand years old, somewhere on earth, with the only defining characteristic being that it had two trees in the center, isn’t really a fair test of creationism.

Actually, that’s a little bit like demanding an evolutionist provide an example of a bacteria turning into a nematode, through the process of gradual mutation and natural selection, under observation.

 

[Abbadon]

You are thinking of Leviathan. I suppose Leviathan could have been a dinosaur.

No theres a quote that said you shall crush the dragons under foot i remember this because at sunday school i yelled out “sweet dragons, what kind of a dragon was it?”

(Does the fact that the children’s poetry section in your newspaper contains fanciful material, probably including material about faeries and dragons, mean that you can’t believe anything on the front page? Oh, wait; that might not be the best example. Still, you know what I mean, right? )

Yea i understand what you mean and i"ve had this discussion with my friend many a times. He says that you can know what is symbolic and what is literal, I always argue that how do you really know that satan visited jesus in the desert, could it not have been symbolic?

This leads into the accountability of the bible how much can you trust it? And this is one of the greatest flaws i find, how much faith is put into a book written by men.

And here i began to write down far to much, I’m making a new thread, because this doesnt really belong in an evolution thread…

Small-t tradition holds that Eden was in northwestern Iraq. The area is currently an uninhabitable desert.

So it really doesn’t exist does it?

 

[jmcrae]

No theres a quote that said you shall crush the dragons under foot i remember this because at sunday school i yelled out “sweet dragons, what kind of a dragon was it?”

Ah, yes. Psalm 91:13.
**
Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.**

The Devil actually quoted from this Psalm, which is a prophecy about Jesus, when it tried to tempt Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus, of course, knowing the true meaning of this passage, was not able to be tempted by the sin of pride.

Yea i understand what you mean and i"ve had this discussion with my friend many a times. He says that you can know what is symbolic and what is literal, I always argue that how do you really know that satan visited jesus in the desert, could it not have been symbolic?

That’s why we don’t have just the Bible alone. We also have the Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Church) and the Holy Tradition, which help us to make sense of what we find in the Bible. Because you’re absolutely right - we need help to understand these things, and to be able to discern between what is meant as an allegory, and what is meant to be taken literally.

We can become very confused if we just try to read it and figure it out by ourselves.

So it [Eden] really doesn’t exist does it?

It did, at one time. As I understand the Genesis story, though, it seems as thought it was burned down after the Fall of Man, because they couldn’t get back into it, due to a great fire that was being wielded by an Angel.

 

[newbetx]

I think it’s all in here: Catholics and the Bible

Link takes me to a sign in. This does not appear to be an authoritative web site for Catholism… Is that what you meant it to be or is this a site that refutes the Catholic interpretation of the Bible?

 

[buffalo]

Link takes me to a sign in. This does not appear to be an authoritative web site for Catholism… Is that what you meant it to be or is this a site that refutes the Catholic interpretation of the Bible?

It’s John Martignoni’s site. He is a Catholic Apologist. It is worth signing in.