Were there others present at the time of Adam?

[mro]

Militant Catholic men to women “Give us back our ribs!”

But in all seriousness Eve was around… That’s at least what the Bible says… Whether or not that fits into a scientific context well that is for another thread…

 

[GKCT]

Chris,

Adam and Eve had three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth.

The story of Adam and Eve is basically a myth-this is from my priest. Several writers over many years wrote the story of the creation to attempt to explain how we came about. We do not know how or when God created man. He could have created thousands at once or ten.

There was no word “cousin” in the Arabic language, close relatives were called brothers or sisters. This is where the misunderstanding that Jesus had brothers originated from.

You designate yourself as “atheist”. Can you prove there is no God or do you just not believe?

 

[atheistgirl]

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?

It isnt a theory as in unproven - it’s a fact. Science uses the term theory differently to how it is most commonly used in everyday speech. We evolved from a common ancestor. The dna and fossil records prove this. That’s why Im still a little confused about the papal statement you shared. I did read through it. On the one hand it seems to be saying catholics are obliged to believe we all came from two people, literally, Adam and Eve, who were created by God. On the other it seems to be saying it has no problem with science clearly demonstrating we evolved from a common ancestor and are cousins to our nearest primate relatives. It then seems to do a quick swerve and say the soul is the issue, not our origin. IE the soul was made by God and put into man, at some point in his history.

Sarah x

 

[shocktrooper]

It isnt a theory as in unproven - it’s a fact. Science uses the term theory differently to how it is most commonly used in everyday speech.

If it is a fact, then maybe you can demonstrate it to the world. I am sure there will be a few people interested in seeing you do what God did at the beginning of time.

We evolved from a common ancestor. The dna and fossil records prove this. That’s why Im still a little confused about the papal statement you shared. I did read through it. On the one hand it seems to be saying catholics are obliged to believe we all came from two people, literally, Adam and Eve, who were created by God. On the other it seems to be saying it has no problem with science clearly demonstrating we evolved from a common ancestor and are cousins to our nearest primate relatives. It then seems to do a quick swerve and say the soul is the issue, not our origin. IE the soul was made by God and put into man, at some point in his history.

Sarah x

Yes, the Church is only concerned with the soul. But once the first soul was given to “man” (Adam), then the rest trace their origin from him and not some other “man”. It all goes back to Adam and Eve; this is what the doctrine of Original Sin stands on. This is why it is always being attacked. Do away with Original Sin, and you do away with the need for universal salvation through Christ, the Second Adam. Then we are all dead in our sins.

Pax Christi.

 

[atheistgirl]

If it is a fact, then maybe you can demonstrate it to the world. I am sure there will be a few people interested in seeing you do what God did at the beginning of time.

I’ve had a series of production issues today, and have been awake now for 22 hours so my brain is now totally fried, so forgive me for being dim. What are you asking for evidence for? Abiogensis? Or evolution from a common ancestor?

Science is still open as to the exact mechanisms the lead to the first animated cells - but some fascinating work is being done in the field. If it’s evolution from a common ancestor, well, take your pick, there is just tons of scientific proofs in numerous fields that all over lap. It’s fascinating that the dna record backs up the fossil record.

As for proofs - I am always intrigued as to why literal creationists do not eer submit their work for peer review with other scientists working in the field. After all, if they had proof we did NOT evolved from a common ancestor, but rather two literal people created literally by God, there is a nobel prize right there just waiting for them. But it just never happens.

Did you evenr look at the criteria for submitting evidence to the ‘‘science experts’’ at somewhere like answersingenesis? It’s almost funny. You should read their criteria for what they call ‘‘peer reviewed’’! Basically, nothing they research or publish can contradict the literal meaning of Genesis! Now that’s hardly following where the evidence leads scientifically is it??!!

Sarah x

 

[Ubenedictus]

Chris,

Adam and Eve had three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth.

The story of Adam and Eve is basically a myth-this is from my priest. Several writers over many years wrote the story of the creation to attempt to explain how we came about. We do not know how or when God created man. He could have created thousands at once or ten.

sorry to bust your bubble friend but your priest is so, so, so absolutly wrong. He is teaching against the church he believes to be infalliable. You should have read earlier post before writing. Adam and Eve truly existed and are the sole parents of the human race -this the faith of the church. I won’t waste time going through the proof just read all previous post. I advise you get ‘the catechism of the cath. Chur., fundamental of cath. Dogma’ ask your priest to do same+ the documents of church council and popes. Please don’t give this answer to anyone 'cos you may get your priest in trouble, advise him to go for doctrinal formation. Hey point of correction Adam and Eve had other children Gen 5:4
Please learn about your faith.
peace

 

[dandingo]

Im sorry, but that’s just incorrect. Evolution is a fact, both micro and macro. We may fill in the gaps at a future date, come to understand new processe we were not previously aware of etc, who knows, thats what science is all about, discovery, but there is absolutely nothing that will destroy the fact of evolution. Every scientific field confirms it. And the church does not dispute it.

Sarah x

It isnt a theory as in unproven - it’s a fact. Science uses the term theory differently to how it is most commonly used in everyday speech. We evolved from a common ancestor. The dna and fossil records prove this. That’s why Im still a little confused about the papal statement you shared. I did read through it. On the one hand it seems to be saying catholics are obliged to believe we all came from two people, literally, Adam and Eve, who were created by God. On the other it seems to be saying it has no problem with science clearly demonstrating we evolved from a common ancestor and are cousins to our nearest primate relatives. It then seems to do a quick swerve and say the soul is the issue, not our origin. IE the soul was made by God and put into man, at some point in his history.

Sarah x

I think both sides are confusing two different ‘kinds’ of evolution in this thread. One of them is that certain animals do evolve over time in order to adapt to their environment. Most scientists consider this as fact. The other is that we, as human beings, evolved from ape-like creatures, which is not fact. Just because there are certain things that are similar, there are still way too many missing links. Almost all Atheists that I’ve come across agree that we don’t know for sure where we came from but since Evolution is the best thing we have, that’s what they go with.

Not only that, but to state with such ferocity that we know, for a fact, where we all came from without ever seeing it happen seems to be extreme arrogance. Heck, we can’t cure the common cold or virus but we know, without a shadow of a doubt, where we all came from and how it happened and it was all discovered within the last 200 years or so? Scientists know quite a bit but in the scheme of our universe, we know virtually nothing.

Also, the bold in your first statement contradicts itself. You can’t state that something is a fact and then state that although we don’t know everything we may know it later. So you may know something later but that implies that you also may not, which would mean that it isn’t a fact.

 

[Ubenedictus]

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

hello friend, who says that those evidence linking man to the animal kingdom is not just a proof that man is the summit of physical creation and does not necessary imply that the whole human life is from the animal kingdom? Man is too different (especially in his intellect and will) to truly say his entire life force is from the ape. Look at the animal, see them in their increasing intelligence tell me how consistent evolution as you see the human magnanimous leap in intelligence. You say man evolved, man has remain homo sapien for over 3000yr where is the next specie? If evolution stopped or paused why won’t you adamit that there is God who determine the sequence? Why won’t you believe that there is who created and keeps the laws of our physical world as they are? Since everything is by chance why is it that there is no recorded second when the law of gravity stoped? Why won’t you believe in God?Why won’t you believe in God?Why won’t you believe in God???
Peace in abundance
God love you more than you can ever imagine. He is not a myth he is the most real reality for those who believe peace again:-@

 

[shocktrooper]

I’ve had a series of production issues today, and have been awake now for 22 hours so my brain is now totally fried, so forgive me for being dim. What are you asking for evidence for? Abiogensis? Or evolution from a common ancestor?

Science is still open as to the exact mechanisms the lead to the first animated cells - but some fascinating work is being done in the field. If it’s evolution from a common ancestor, well, take your pick, there is just tons of scientific proofs in numerous fields that all over lap. It’s fascinating that the dna record backs up the fossil record.

As for proofs - I am always intrigued as to why literal creationists do not eer submit their work for peer review with other scientists working in the field. After all, if they had proof we did NOT evolved from a common ancestor, but rather two literal people created literally by God, there is a nobel prize right there just waiting for them. But it just never happens.

Did you evenr look at the criteria for submitting evidence to the ‘‘science experts’’ at somewhere like answersingenesis? It’s almost funny. You should read their criteria for what they call ‘‘peer reviewed’’! Basically, nothing they research or publish can contradict the literal meaning of Genesis! Now that’s hardly following where the evidence leads scientifically is it??!!

Sarah x

I am asking you to take all the “facts” and “evidence” you have, lump it together and re-create mankind from some material using the same exact environmental variables at the beginning of time. If you can’t demonstrate it, then it is not proven.

I have no problem submitting to a higher teaching without understanding it. It is atheists that seem to need to “know” everything, even things they have no way of knowing. This is why I asked if you would consider your loyalty to atheism to be more of a faith rather than intellectual.

I really have no interest in this field; I am just trying to defend what the Church teaches. God bless. I hope the next few days for you go better.

Pax Christi.

 

[atheistgirl]

The other is that we, as human beings, evolved from ape-like creatures, which is not fact.

It is a fact. Those that claim otherwise are free to provide evidence that dismantles the proof we evolved from a common ancestor - none have.

Not only that, but to state with such ferocity that we know, for a fact, where we all came from without ever seeing it happen seems to be extreme arrogance.

Well according to that logic we would never convict certain criminals, as we would be extremely arrogant to do so!!! I mean, the guy that got convicted for murdering a woman in the woods - no one saw him right? No one saw the event happen right?

We’re just not going to agree, so I we’ll just leave it there.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

This is why I asked if you would consider your loyalty to atheism to be more of a faith rather than intellectual.

I dont think it’s a faith - it’s simply looking at what evidence we have and that evidence is growing all the time. I dont have a belief in atheism, Im actually very open minded about a lot of things - but if there’s no evidence I dont go there until there is.

I really have no interest in this field; I am just trying to defend what the Church teaches.

I understand that for sure and respect your position totally. I not sure though that the church teaches a literal Adam and Eve, rather a specific point at which man, however he came to be, evolved from common ancestory or literally made by God as a one off, recieved a soul from God and sinned and that’s the bit that cannot be denied. But anyhow, maybe best we just leave it there as I if evolution from common ancestory is denied, we certainly wont ever agree, until science tells me differently.

I hope the next few days for you go better.

Thank you - I appreciate that

I wish you well too.

Sarah x

 

[shocktrooper]

I not sure though that the church teaches a literal Adam and Eve, rather a specific point at which man, however he came to be, evolved from common ancestory or literally made by God as a one off, recieved a soul from God and sinned and that’s the bit that cannot be denied. But anyhow, maybe best we just leave it there as I if evolution from common ancestory is denied, we certainly wont ever agree, until science tells me differently.

Sorry, I disagree. The Catholic Chuch has made this very clear.

Original sin is a de fide dogma (Ott, p. 108; Denzinger 789-791) and was declared at the Council of Trent, tying it with the historical Adam and Eve:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

God bless.

 

[chris62]

Chris,

Adam and Eve had three sons, Cain, Abel and Seth.

The story of Adam and Eve is basically a myth-this is from my priest. Several writers over many years wrote the story of the creation to attempt to explain how we came about. We do not know how or when God created man. He could have created thousands at once or ten.

There was no word “cousin” in the Arabic language, close relatives were called brothers or sisters. This is where the misunderstanding that Jesus had brothers originated from.

You designate yourself as “atheist”. Can you prove there is no God or do you just not believe?

If you are referring to me (which I don’t think you are) I have not designated myself as “atheist”.

 

[dandingo]

It is a fact. Those that claim otherwise are free to provide evidence that dismantles the proof we evolved from a common ancestor - none have.
**
Why is it that at least half of the atheists as well as most of the scientists I’ve conversed with have stated that the Theory of Evolution is still just that, a theory. Of course they state that there is evidence to support it but their answer is always the same - it’s the best guess we have with the evidence that we have at this time. That doesn’t sound like “fact” to me.**

Well according to that logic we would never convict certain criminals, as we would be extremely arrogant to do so!!! I mean, the guy that got convicted for murdering a woman in the woods - no one saw him right? No one saw the event happen right?

We’re just not going to agree, so I we’ll just leave it there.

Sarah x

And that’s my point. We often do convict certain criminals because our justice system is so corrupt and so many of the prosecutors and judges have such a large ego that they’d rather put a man in jail for life than admit that they’re wrong. There are plenty of convictions of people where there were eyewitnesses. How many eyewitnesses were there to the beginning of the universe? How about when man evolved from ape-like creatures? Was anyone there when we when our minds went from only having instinct to rational, reasonable thought?

 

[atheistgirl]

@Dandingo

There is no credible, peer reviewed, scientist who doubts the fact of evolution. Besides, there’s been 150 years for the best minds in the business to dismantle and discredit ToE. None have.

How about when man evolved from ape-like creatures? Was anyone there when we when our minds went from only having instinct to rational, reasonable thought?

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms the fact of our evolution from a common ancestor. Even the catholic church, frim everything Ive been reading over the past few days, does not dispute this.

christianpost.com/news/catholics-accept-evolution-guided-by-god-7632/

It intrigues me that those that deny this, never actually produce any scientific evidence to the contrary that can be scrutinized and peer reviewed. Why is that?

And incidently, we are not nearly as rational as we like to think we are.

sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainBriefings_MirrorNeurons

I also found this interesting:

Evolutionary theory can be seen in a way which is compatible with Catholic dogma, according to the Church. On the 12 August 1950, the Catholic Church accepted that the theory of evolution was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However, the encyclical rejects what it described as “fictitious tenets of evolution”, such as “Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.”.[88]

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”[89]

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”[90] This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) who was the President of the Commission at the time.

The Magisterium has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design, and has permitted arguments on both sides of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna appeared to endorse intelligent design when he denounced philosophically materialist interpretations of evolution.[91] In an op-ed in the New York Times he said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”[92]

In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge’s ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific.[93][94] Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.[95]

From Wiki

Sarah x

 

[dandingo]

@Dandingo

There is no credible, peer reviewed, scientist who doubts the fact of evolution. Besides, there’s been 150 years for the best minds in the business to dismantle and discredit ToE. None have.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms the fact of our evolution from a common ancestor. Even the catholic church, frim everything Ive been reading over the past few days, does not dispute this.

christianpost.com/news/catholics-accept-evolution-guided-by-god-7632/

It intrigues me that those that deny this, never actually produce any scientific evidence to the contrary that can be scrutinized and peer reviewed. Why is that?

And incidently, we are not nearly as rational as we like to think we are.

sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainBriefings_MirrorNeurons

I also found this interesting:

From Wiki

Sarah x

Hi Sarah,

Just because the Catholic Church states that believing in Evolution can be guided by God does not mean that it’s fact or that the Catholic Church accepts it as fact. It means that we can accept it but it also means that we don’t have to. Now I’m not saying that Evolution can’t be true. I’ve never said that. What I’m saying is that I don’t consider it to be a fact, such as 2+2=4.

Most scientific theories don’t even work that way and science acknowledges that. They state that something is a theory but can still be proven wrong at a later time. If something can be proven wrong, how is it an absolute fact? In other words, it’s the best guess we have with the evidence that we have. Can 2+2=4 be proven wrong at a later time? My point is that it seems that atheists need something to believe in just as atheists believe religion proves that believers need something to believe in. I acknowledge that there is a lot of evidence in support of Evolution. All I’m saying is that if a Theory is something that can be proven wrong later on, is it at all possible that it it isn’t completely fact?

And you’re pointing me to science that states that we aren’t as rational as we think we are? How can we take that rational thought seriously since we aren’t nearly as rational as we think we are? That would mean that that statement isn’t rational at all so how can accept it.as rational?

 

[atheistgirl]

All I’m saying is that if a Theory is something that can be proven wrong later on, is it at all possible that it it isn’t completely fact?

That’s the sheer majestic beauty of science. It can, potentially, be proven wrong. All science HAS to be able to, potentially, be proven wrong, otherwise, irt isn’t science. And scientists continuely test what is known. Look at what’s happening with the neutrinos I think that constant search to expand our knowledge and horizons is awesome.

However, the* potential* to be able to prove a point wrong, is a far cry from not acting on the fact of information.

That would mean that that statement isn’t rational at all so how can accept it.as rational?

I just instinctively knew it was right. Nothing rational about it at all for me

Sarah x

 

[gregtr]

Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis
Polygenism is not **acceptable **because it cannot **be seen **how it could be reconciled with the Church’s doctrine on original sin, “which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam and, transmitted to all by generation, is found in, and proper to, each.” [cf. DS 3897]

This is obviously not an infallible definition

 

[shocktrooper]

Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis
Polygenism is not **acceptable **because it cannot **be seen **how it could be reconciled with the Church’s doctrine on original sin, “which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam and, transmitted to all by generation, is found in, and proper to, each.” [cf. DS 3897]

This is obviously not an infallible definition

No one said it was infallible. However, it is still BINDING on ALL CATHOLICS.

Pax Christi.

 

[shocktrooper]

Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis
Polygenism is not **acceptable **because it cannot **be seen **how it could be reconciled with the Church’s doctrine on original sin, “which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam and, transmitted to all by generation, is found in, and proper to, each.” [cf. DS 3897]

This is obviously not an infallible definition

I think you also forgot to quote this part…

from Humani Generis…
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

I am not quite sure how anyone can read that and then walk away asking, “Well, what does that mean? Does that mean that I can still believe that Adam is only symbolic and that we really had multiple first parents?”