Were there others present at the time of Adam?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris62
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh dear. Ive been reading up on Dr. Behe :eek:

Here’s a great dramatization of one of his excursions into court to defend ID 😃

The last minute of the clip from the court papers is too funny 😃

youtube.com/watch?v=aBpW-m8soMY

But it does back up the tide of criticism from his colleagues about his integrity :eek:

Sarah x 🙂
 
Behe teaches at Lehigh University - on their website, his page has the following disclaimer:
Official Disclaimer
Click to expand...
My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.
Click to expand...
lehigh.edu/bio/faculty/behe.html

Wow.

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
Oh dear. Ive been reading up on Dr. Behe :eek:

Here’s a great dramatization of one of his excursions into court to defend ID 😃

The last minute of the clip from the court papers is too funny 😃

youtube.com/watch?v=aBpW-m8soMY

But it does back up the tide of criticism from his colleagues about his integrity :eek:

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
atheistgirl said:
Behe teaches at Lehigh University - on their website, his page has the following disclaimer:

lehigh.edu/bio/faculty/behe.html

Wow.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
Good evening, Sarah,

Thank you for these links. I’ve been to both of them.

The arguments in the first link are lost on me. Just because some of the parts work on another bacterium and machine as something else, doesn’t change the fact that the original won’t work without them.

The second link informs me that Dr. Behe is into Intelligent Design. I strongly disagree with ID on religious grounds. Not trying to preach to you, here. Just stating why. The ID theory leaves open whose or which intelligence designed everything. IE, it gives an opening to another being than God Most High the Holy Trinity having creative powers, imho.

God loves you,
Don
 
donsnow said:
The arguments in the first link are lost on me. Just because some of the parts work on another bacterium and machine as something else, doesn’t change the fact that the original won’t work without them.
Click to expand...
The argument is that the original part had to be designed whole, complete, come into existence fully formed, since it is irreducibly complex. Therefor it could not have evolved and must have a designer.

They demonstrated this wansnt the case - remove one part and you still have a perfectly functioning part, just used as something else. So evolutionary processes have something to work with to eventually bring about the flagellum. So the evolution of the flagellum can be demonstrated in it’s stages, thereby defeating the irreducibly complex/designer argument.

Actually, reading that back, Im not sure I made it any clearer!!!

Sarah x 🙂
 
shocktrooper said:
If the Neanderthal Man was the first with a** human soul**, then yes. The human soul is what makes a person. A dead body is no longer a person, but a corps, mere material. The person (soul) has gone on to be judged.

The Church has no reason to take a side when it comes to the issue of when life for mankind started. She simply leaves it at Adam and Eve are real people and we all descend from them.

The problem I have with humans coming from preexisting animals is this…
  • on a scientific and material level, it is far from being proven; regardless of what people say. It can never be proven or duplicated with the same environmental variables.
  • and more importantly,IMO, it does not square with Sacred Scripture or Tradition. A soul is what animates us and animals. If you remove the soul from an animal, it is lifeless, meaning it is not moving at all but decaying. If you remove the human soul from a person’s body, the body is also lifeless. We have life in us because of our souls, not because of our bodies. If we posit that God took an animal (something with an animal soul and not rational/human) then he would be destroying a preexisting animal to bring about the person of Adam. Again, I just don’t see any such idea in Scripture or Tradition that God took an animal (matter that was already created with a soul) and then did the old switch-a-roo on it, making it a person by breathing a new and updated rational soul (one that can know, love and serve God) into it.
IMO, again, it is more of an act of blind faith to believe that, than just believing what the Church has always taught, up till the modern age where generational snobbery is so prevalent, meaning we think we are so much smarter, now and all other generations are just a bunch of “neanderthals”.

As Catholics, I never understood why this teaching is so hard to submit to and accept by just giving it our ascent of faith. I know you are not Catholic, or Christian, so I understand your position. Maybe one day, you will be with us in the Body of Christ.

God bless.
Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
The origin of mankind is still a mystery to science. Darwin’s observations do not in fact show the emergence of new species. His theory of human evolution amounts to a speculation not so far falsified. The existence of hominids lends plausibility, but it is not possible to trance a line of descent, as the Evolutionists so glibly did in the early days. One thing is certainly true: genetic research reveals that all men are cousins, had common ancestors.
 
donsnow said:
Good evening, Sarah,

Thank you for these links. I’ve been to both of them.

The arguments in the first link are lost on me. Just because some of the parts work on another bacterium and machine as something else, doesn’t change the fact that the original won’t work without them.

The second link informs me that Dr. Behe is into Intelligent Design. I strongly disagree with ID on religious grounds. Not trying to preach to you, here. Just stating why. The ID theory leaves open whose or which intelligence designed everything. IE, it gives an opening to another being than God Most High the Holy Trinity having creative powers, imho.

God loves you,
Don
Click to expand...
The arguments of St. Thomas do not pretend to prove the existence of the God of Abraham, only that His existence can be know through reason. Behe and the rest
are simply trying to devise a way by which Darwinism can be scientifically tested. If a theory cannot be tested, then it cannot be falsified.
 
shocktrooper said:
If the Neanderthal Man was the first with a** human soul**, then yes. The human soul is what makes a person. A dead body is no longer a person, but a corps, mere material. The person (soul) has gone on to be judged.

The Church has no reason to take a side when it comes to the issue of when life for mankind started. She simply leaves it at Adam and Eve are real people and we all descend from them.

The problem I have with humans coming from preexisting animals is this…
  • on a scientific and material level, it is far from being proven; regardless of what people say. It can never be proven or duplicated with the same environmental variables.
  • and more importantly,IMO, it does not square with Sacred Scripture or Tradition. A soul is what animates us and animals. If you remove the soul from an animal, it is lifeless, meaning it is not moving at all but decaying. If you remove the human soul from a person’s body, the body is also lifeless. We have life in us because of our souls, not because of our bodies. If we posit that God took an animal (something with an animal soul and not rational/human) then he would be destroying a preexisting animal to bring about the person of Adam. Again, I just don’t see any such idea in Scripture or Tradition that God took an animal (matter that was already created with a soul) and then did the old switch-a-roo on it, making it a person by breathing a new and updated rational soul (one that can know, love and serve God) into it.
IMO, again, it is more of an act of blind faith to believe that, than just believing what the Church has always taught, up till the modern age where generational snobbery is so prevalent, meaning we think we are so much smarter, now and all other generations are just a bunch of “neanderthals”.

As Catholics, I never understood why this teaching is so hard to submit to and accept by just giving it our ascent of faith. I know you are not Catholic, or Christian, so I understand your position. Maybe one day, you will be with us in the Body of Christ.

God bless.
Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
Well, one can speculate that the first human(s) was/were mutations of other animals. But if man is distinguished from the apes by his intelligence, a great problem arises from the vast difference in the intelligence of the apes and that of man. The difference seems to be immaterial, since man and the ape are 98% the same, and we haven’t a clue how a human develops his intelligence from a fertilized egg. Rather WHAT governs that precess.
 
RobbyS said:
Well, one can speculate that the first human(s) was/were mutations of other animals. But if man is distinguished from the apes by his intelligence, a great problem arises from the vast difference in the intelligence of the apes and that of man. The difference seems to be immaterial, since man and the ape are 98% the same, and we haven’t a clue how a human develops his intelligence from a fertilized egg. Rather WHAT governs that precess.
Click to expand...
Let me help.

Man = Human.
Ape = Animal.

Totally different!
 
atheistgirl said:
The argument is that the original part had to be designed whole, complete, come into existence fully formed, since it is irreducibly complex. Therefor it could not have evolved and must have a designer.

They demonstrated this wansnt the case - remove one part and you still have a perfectly functioning part, just used as something else. So evolutionary processes have something to work with to eventually bring about the flagellum. So the evolution of the flagellum can be demonstrated in it’s stages, thereby defeating the irreducibly complex/designer argument.

Actually, reading that back, Im not sure I made it any clearer!!!

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
Good evening, Sarah,

Well, I still think that the flagellum was created whole, using existing parts in nature. So, I guess you didn’t make it any clearer :).

God loves you,
Don
 
RobbyS said:
The arguments of St. Thomas do not pretend to prove the existence of the God of Abraham, only that His existence can be know through reason. Behe and the rest
are simply trying to devise a way by which Darwinism can be scientifically tested. If a theory cannot be tested, then it cannot be falsified.
Click to expand...
Good evening, Robby,

I understand the first sentence of your post.

After that, you lost me.

Sorry about that.

God loves you,
Don
 
atheistgirl said:
Here’s an excellent dismantling of Behe’s arguements by a biochemist:

cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

Do you have evidence as you claimed evolutionary biologists are embarrassed by the preCambrian?

Please produce evidence - peer reviewed scientific papers by reputable scientists - that the preCambrian explosion in any way calls into question the fact of evolution.

You claim scientists are embarrassed. Please support the claim. Or that the debates between for example Gould and Morris in any way casts doubt on evolution and posits an alternative system for the development of life on earth.

Also worth noting - that book’s first edition came out 15 years ago, and the second edition 5 years ago. A lot has happened since then. But, my gosh, here’s what his peers think of it, and the fact some of his argumentation is unfalsifiable, which means its not even scientific!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin’s_Black_Box

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not interested in getting into a your expert vs my expert debate. I don’t have the time to waste trying to convince you of something you don’t want to believe. If you are truly interested and open-minded, you’ll research the issue yourself.
 
donsnow said:
Well, **I still think **that the flagellum was created whole, using existing parts in nature. So, I guess you didn’t make it any clearer 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s ok. We **know **it wasn’t 😃 Ultimately, the flagellum doesnt much mind 😃

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
The same document also says this:

Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

It seems on the one hand to be accepting that evolution from common ancestory is perfectly acceptable, us evolving from ‘‘pre existing and living matter’’ while at the same time insisting you have to believe that single person that kicked off the human species, which we know is not how human evolution works. In fact, from dna mapping, we know mitochrondrial Eve lived tens of thousands of years before Y chromosone Adam came along. Ironically, Eve came before Adam.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
You kind of have it correct. This specific line makes clear that we are free to believe that a “human person” came forth from pre-existing material, as long as one also maintains that the soul of the person is immediately created by God. For example, every human person’s soul is created by God out of nothing at conception. The parents simply provide the material in which God “injects” the soul.

And yes, Adam and Eve are real and are our first parents. We all descend from them.

Pax Christi.
 
two points
  1. Don’t be embarrased by the possiblitiy of inbreeding. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 greats, 16, 32, etc. But, going back in history, the population of the planet gets smaller and smaller. OH NO!!!
  2. Darwin’s conclusions cannot be disproven because his mistake is in his premise. He began by assuming that the difference BETWEEN species were just bigger forms of the the differences WITHIN a species. Again, this is where he started, not where he ended.
 
lowell_mass said:
  1. Darwin’s conclusions cannot be disproven because his mistake is in his premise. He began by assuming that the difference BETWEEN species were just bigger forms of the the differences WITHIN a species. Again, this is where he started, not where he ended.
Click to expand...
It’s worth remembering Darwin got the ball rolling. Since then, many brillant scientists have continued to illuminate, discover, clarify and refine his initial work. Darwin is not the be all and end all but the fact of evolution has never been disproven - nor will it be.

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
It’s worth remembering Darwin got the ball rolling. Since then, many brillant scientists have continued to illuminate, discover, clarify and refine his initial work. Darwin is not the be all and end all but the fact of evolution has never been disproven - nor will it be.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone here is claiming that evolution within a species is false. Why would we try to disprove this?

Can you reconstruct, or duplicate the beginning of time with all its variables in order to “prove” the THEORY that mankind evolved from pre-existing material (beasts)? If not, can’t you consider it an act of faith and not of science on your part to believe what you do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top