What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The evidence that Adam and Eve were real and the first couple of the human race is the Bible itself which catholics believe to be the word of God. God is the principle author of the entire Bible and his word is certain truth. But, it is a matter of faith that a person believes the Bible to be the word of God but the faith is not unreasonable and it is attested too by the many miracles in the Old Testament as well as all the miracles performed by Jesus Christ and his disciples in the New Testament. If Adam and Eve were not real people, what certain evidence without the possibility of any doubt is there presently to entertain this notion? There is none and nobody alive today or from the recent past was around to directly observe the distant past and the beginnings of the human race. Also, if Adam and Eve are truly the first couple created immediately by God both as to soul and body of the whole human race which I believe to be the truth of the matter, it follows that there cannot be any real true evidence, scientific or otherwise, to dispute this.
 
Last edited:
opop said:
And as a side note, genetic evidences clearly show that a biological origin from only two individuals is impossible for the acutal human population. It is rather vain to fight the evidence.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the latest on population genetic models is that a bottleneck of two humans cannot be ruled out from 500,000 years or older.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/i...ouple-in-our-past-new-evidence-and-arguments/

The results of this study were even conducted I believe like all other previous population genetic models assuming and using standard evolutionary paradigm parameters. It should be noted that such parameters do not take into account models that assume created genetic diversity in a first couple of the human race which are currently being worked on by scientists who favor a creationist approach to human origins. It will be interesting to see what results come from assuming or beginning with created genetic diversity in a first couple of the human race. It’s all quite interesting but population genetic models in general are an uncertain science with varying degrees of ‘certainty’ or probability and which cannot factor in all real life parameters and uncertainties which from the distant past are unknown and due to the nature of mathematics itself that is used in the models. Also, new knowledge and discoveries concerning genetics seem to appear all the time.
 
Last edited:
1st. There is scientific evidence that we all come from one common ancestor.

2nd. Whose to say that Adam and Eve weren’t homosapians or neanderthals? Where in Scripture does it say they weren’t?

3rd. We aren’t meant to take ANY Old Testament stories literally. They are allegorical stories that are meant to teach us something about God. In particular the Adam and Eve story is meant to teach us that A: We come from one common source, B: That God engineered the creation of mankind, C: That we chose sin over living in harmony with God.

4th. Believing that God created us doesn’t mean we have to believe He did it on the spot. How can we put such restraints on God? He very well could have created us THROUGH evolutionary means. I, personally, am not entirely convinced that we came from ‘apes’ but I don’t have a problem thinking that mankind as a species has changed and evolved through the ages. We see it even NOW in modern times so why couldn’t it have happened before? And why couldn’t it have still been part of God’s design?
 
Yes I know this result. However, the bottleneck of two 500’000 years ago would simply have been a bottleneck of two individuals of the genus Homo. But it would not have been two individuals of anatomically modern humans (i. e. ourselves). Homo sapiens didn’t appear before 350’000 years ago approximately. And anatomically modern humans didn’t appear before 200’000 years ago.
 
This is speculation. I suggest you locate a good reference for all of the cranial shapes of all human racial groups. This will clearly show the wide variation involved. The Pygmies in Africa are fully human.

Also, the Church tells us Adam and Eve were given preternatural gifts from God, including bodily immortality. Original Sin is dogma. That is why Jesus Christ was born to die as a sacrifice so that sins could be forgiven. And He rose from the dead, and raised others from the dead.

All I see - speaking generally - are attempts to discredit the Old Testament. Catholics cannot do that.

"22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.

"23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

"24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu.”
  • Humani Generis
 
The church has no definitive statement on my speculations. We are allowed to believe what I set out above. So long as we hold to two fundamental truths: Adam and Eve are our common ancestors, God created them (through whichever means He chose), and they chose sin.

The Old Testament was never meant to be taken literally. Not when the Jews wrote it and not when we took it.

PS: I said two fundamental truths then wrote down three. I’m leaving this mistake in because why not? LOL
 
Last edited:
opop said:
Yes I know this result. However, the bottleneck of two 500’000 years ago would simply have been a bottleneck of two individuals of the genus Homo. But it would not have been two individuals of anatomically modern humans (i. e. ourselves). Homo sapiens didn’t appear before 350’000 years ago approximately. And anatomically modern humans didn’t appear before 200’000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Ok. Supposing a bottleneck of two 500,000 years ago or older, I believe there is no reason why according to the fossil record that this bottleneck of two individuals could not be the first two human beings, namely, Adam and Eve. Homo erectus fossils which supposedly date back to about 1.9 million years and Neanderthals which are said to date to about 450,000 years are essentially it is said anatomically or morphologically the same as modern humans whether from the distant past or present. The anatomical or morphological variations in Homo erectus and Neanderthals are within the variations found in modern humans past and present. In fact, from what I understand and have read, there are fossils of humans found in various places in Australia and elsewhere which date from about 10,000 - 35,000 years ago which unmistakably possess the features of homo erectus morphology.

Consequently, I believe that the taxon called homo erectus are probably human beings and that they are actually homo sapiens, the first human beings and first race of human beings descended from Adam and Eve. Neanderthals appear to be most definitely human beings, another race descended later from Adam and Eve. The taxon australopithecus are said to be older fossils than homo erectus and these fossils are simply apes, brute animals analogous to the apes or chimps that presently live on earth. I personally don’t believe the bodies of the first man and woman evolved from apes or any animal so it makes sense to me that the taxons homo erectus and even more probable neanderthals are actually human beings, descendants of Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:
The claim science makes is based on starting point diversity assumptions. There is no proof they did not exist.
 
somecanadian said:
2nd. Whose to say that Adam and Eve weren’t homosapians or neanderthals? Where in Scripture does it say they weren’t?
Click to expand...
I think our origins can be traced to the emergence of intellect. The ability to ask why, what, where, etc. The ability to imagine a future in which one doesn’t exist. Abstract thought, Neanderthal didn’t have it.
 
somecanadian said:
The Old Testament was never meant to be taken literally. Not when the Jews wrote it and not when we took it.
Click to expand...
The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
 
Last edited:
Maybe they did. But if they were anatomically unable to speak they aren’t us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top