Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[CaptainPrudeman]

When it gets the stage when we have souled humans breeding with un-souled humans, I know there is something terrible, terribly wrong with theistic evolution.

Honestly? I don’t see the problem with it. Neanderthals have been theorized to have been able to communicate and foster society. They would have looked like us and acted like us, too. Even without souls, I have a hard time thinking God would have pulled the red card if an ensouled H. Sapiens boy saw a non-ensouled H. Neanderthalensis girl and wanted to know her a little better. Even if He did have a problem with it, we know humans aren’t exactly known for being prefect saints.

Which race of humans did Adam sire?

I believe it was Homo Sapiens.

When and where? What scientific evidence is there of Adam’s master race of ensouled humans taking over the world?

When? Unsure. Where? Africa or the Fertile Crescent, some area where ancient mankind was before spreading across the world. As for the evidence, just look around: We’re all H. Sapiens.

Theistic evolutionists are very short on answers and are unconvincing - what a pity they aren’t as sure about Adam as they are about him having a bateria as an ancestor.

That’s because the science on evolution and the theology of early human ensoulment are fields with very different amounts of research and applied work. And, as far as I know, multicellular life didn’t evolve from bacteria, but other prokaryotic life. May be wrong about that one, but it’s important to not make mistakes like that just to make evolution sound ridiculous.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It cannot be that you don’t realisee this

Are you really sure about that?

Absolutely positive. I cut and paste sections of every paper he links to showing that they are based on an understanding of evolution that he rejects entirely.

Buffalo is showing you what he considers to be evidence against evolition but says ‘check out this sentence in this paragraph here - but please ignore the very basis on which the paper was written’.

His only way to avoid the embarrasment is to link to sites that support ID. They have already filtered out the contradictions in his argument.

 

[Buzzard3]

Honestly? I don’t see the problem with it. Neanderthals have been theorized to have been able to communicate and foster society. They would have looked like us and acted like us, too. Even without souls, I have a hard time thinking God would have pulled the red card if an ensouled H. Sapiens boy saw a non-ensouled H. Neanderthalensis girl and wanted to know her a little better.

This is a joke, right?

Even if He did have a problem with it, we know humans aren’t exactly known for being prefect saints.

God would never approve of bestiality.

I believe it was Homo Sapiens

So Adam must have existed 300,000 years ago?

When? Unsure. Where? Africa or the Fertile Crescent, some area where ancient mankind was before spreading across the world. As for the evidence, just look around: We’re all H. Sapiens.

Genesis says Adam lived near the Euphrates River.

That’s because the science on evolution and the theology of early human ensoulment are fields with very different amounts of research and applied work. And, as far as I know, multicellular life didn’t evolve from bacteria, but other prokaryotic life. May be wrong about that one, but it’s important to not make mistakes like that just to make evolution sound ridiculous

No one can know if life on earth descended from a prokaryote. The whole “common ancestor” thing is not a theory that can be tested. Theories that can’t be tested don’t even qualify as science.

Everything. The universe and its laws. The end result of those laws is mankind.

The “laws” of creation - how very scientifically correct!

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

This is a joke, right?

Nope.

God would never approve of bestiality.

The similarities between neanderthals and modern man are much slighter than those between man and animal. If I may ask, what is your understanding as to the reasons bestiality is wrong?

So Adam must have existed 300,000 years ago?

No, reread my posts.

Genesis says Adam lived near the Euphrates River.

Probably in that area, then. I’ve personally never seen that passage before.

 

[Buzzard3]

But, yet God didn’t have to wait Billions and Billions and Billions of years to create the fish and bread, and the water into wine.

Our resurrection is going to be a slow ol’ affair - we’ll have to wait billions of years for our glorified bodies to evolve from a bug!

Wait … would the bug have be glorified too? Can you evolve a glorified human body from a non-glorified bug?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Not said or supported by anyone in this thread. Do not strawman.

 

[Buzzard3]

I don’t think (and as far as I can tell no one this thread thinks) that He had to use any particular method. I do believe that He chose to use evolution. It not only fits the observable facts best, but it also demonstrates His perfect knowledge of His creation that He could start it up and let it unfold over billions of years exactly as intended.

How do Adam and Eve fit into the evolution narrative?

 

[whatistrue]

Please don’t tell me you never heard the answer to that question. It is or should be common knowledge.

 

[Buzzard3]

Probably in that area, then. I’ve personally never seen that passage before

From Genesis 2:
10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel;[b] it is the one which goes toward the east of [c]Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

All that tells us is that Adam lived near the headwaters, not necessarily that he lived near the Euphrates. Based on that, though, it sounds like he maybe lived in Kuwait?

 

[Buzzard3]

Please don’t tell me you never heard the answer to that question. It is or should be common knowledge

Please tell me how Adam and Eve fit into the evolution story. I’m not smart enough or evolved enough to work it out. Thanx.

When and where did Adam enter scientifc history, for example.

 

[Buzzard3]

No, reread my posts

Confusing. I asked you what race Adam sired and you said H. sapiens, so I took that to mean all H. sapiens, as in, from their beginning 300,000 ya.

So please elaborate on your position. Are you saying Adam sired only some H. sapiens, not all? If so, when did this happen?

(I’m sorry I’m not smart enough or evolved enough to understand theistic evolution - I need help to grasp it.)

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Confusing. I asked you what race Adam sired and you said H. sapiens, so I took that to mean all H. sapiens, as in, from their beginning 300,000 ya.

That was not my intention. Sorry if it was unclear.

Are you saying Adam sired only some H. sapiens, not all? If so, when did this happen?

I’m not sure when, like I’ve said before. All I know is that Adam was ensouled during his lifetime, and was born into a community or group of H. Sapiens without souls. All men are descended in some part from him, but he is not our only ancestor.

(I’m sorry I’m not smart enough or evolved enough to understand theistic evolution - I need help to grasp it.)

Snark not appreciated.

 

[rossum]

The fact that dozens of new animal phyla appear in the Cambrian without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors represents a big problem for Darwinism. As Gunter Bechly says, to claim that it isn’t a problem is “absurd”.

Your sources are misinforming you. About a dozen new animal phyla appear in the Cambrian, not “dozens”. Notice also that “animal phyla”. Have you looked at the figures for plant phyla? They mostly appear later, in the Triassic, Carboniferous and Devonian.

Are you still claiming that up to 15 million years is “sudden”?

 

[rossum]

For example, how can anyone know or demonstrate how a bird evolved from a reptile? That event can’t even be observed, so how on earth can anyone know how it happened?

We cannot observe our descent from Adam and Eve, so how on earth can anyone know how it happened?

We can use DNA tests to determine paternity, even without eye-witnesses. We can do the same with reptiles and birds. The fossil evidence also confirms what the DNA tells us. Or are you denying the validity of paternity testing?

 

[o_mlly]

All atoms in rocks are exogenous. All atoms in living organisms are exogenous.

Changing perspectives to the atomic level only deflects from the point being made in the argument.

Igneous rocks are composed of minerals . Minerals are defined by geologists as naturally occurring inorganic solids.

Rocks modified physically or chemically (sedimentary or metamorphic rocks) may contain carbon only accidentally. However, the essence of rock is inorganic, no carbon.

 

[rossum]

Igneous rocks are composed of minerals .

Which completely ignores sedimentary rocks. You are ignoring the inconvenient parts of geology for your vitalist-lite argument.

Vitalism was disproved in the 19th century. There is nothing special about the chemicals involved in life; they are just like the chemicals involved in non-living material: Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen and the rest. The iron in our blood is the same iron as we find in iron ores in mines. The nitrogen in our proteins is the same a the nitrogen in the atmosphere.

 

[whatistrue]

I’m not smart enough or evolved enough to work it out.

No need to “work it out”, just read the readily available Church documents that have been referenced multiple times on this very forum. Or you can start with some of the tracts on the parent site:

Adam, Eve, and Evolution | Catholic Answers Tract

Given the evidence for evolution, are Catholics required to believe Adam and Eve existed? | Catholic Answers Q&A

And so forth…

 

[o_mlly]

Which completely ignores sedimentary rocks.

Please read the entire post before responding.

Rocks modified physically or chemically (sedimentary or metamorphic rocks) may contain carbon only accidentally. However, the essence of rock is inorganic, no carbon.

There is nothing special about the chemicals involved in life …

No, carbon is essentially unique to life and essentially absent from rocks.

Rocks to living creatures is the issue. What experience, not speculation, can you offer to support that rocks evolved into living creatures? Can you demonstrate any life from that is inorganic?

 

[rossum]

Rocks modified physically or chemically ( sedimentary or metamorphic rocks) may contain carbon only accidentally.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves in the oceans and some of that dissolved carbon is deposited onto the ocean floor and forms rocks. Your source is misinforming you.

No, carbon is essentially unique to life and essentially absent from rocks.

Hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen are also essential for life, and are found in rocks. Your argument relies on ignoring counter-examples.

Most igneous rocks contain silicates, which contain oxygen. You conveniently ignore the fact that oxygen is essential for life: RNA, DNA and amino acids all contain oxygen.