J
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
To argue about the soul may possibly lead to as much confusion as discussing evolution. Here we see “soul” used in very different ways. Jung’s animus (a male soul) and anima (female) are archetypes, symbols of built-in psychological structures that can manifest themselves in dreams and represent different aspects of ourselves which may be in conflict. Dante’s Beatrice may be understood as a muse, an inspiration in female form that leads him to the heavens and hells of existence. It is part of the human psyche, our capacity to feel, think, know and understand. Such symbols, by which we communicate to ourselves and others, reflect the structure of the psychospiritual dimensions of human existence.ProdglArchitect:
This is certainly the position of Carl Jung, and his concepts of the anima and animus.
God created humans to reflect Himself. “Male and female created He them”, which would seem to imply that He has (non-physical) traits that are both. Our concepts of male and female “soul” are very culturally influenced.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Our spirit on the other hand, the human soul brings together all the information that constitutes our physical and psychological nature into one whole, the person, who exists not in isolation but in relation to what is other to its self. In that respect, God making us male and female reflects our incompleteness in ourselves and the necessity to give to that which is other for their good, what we have been given, to thereby achieve union and fulfillment, this in the image of the Triune Godhead.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, but this is being transmitted to the folks through media outlets.
Proof Adam and Eve did exist? Scientists reveal all humans are descended from one couple
Now, research from the University of Basel in Switzerland suggests the word of the Holy Book may be based on more scientific fact than sceptics previously thought.Loading…
www.irishpost.com
I have been posting for years that the genetic studies would overthrow the current understanding/defintiion of species. And now we have a really big first salvo.
E
edwest
Guest
You missed the memo? It was widely held that a minimum breeding population was needed to get from alleged pre-humans to modern humans. It will be interesting to see what reactions this gets from working Biologists.
G
guanophore
Guest
Biologically, I agree with you, but you seem to be saying that the female “soul” has to do with the ability of the female body to conceive and bear children?
Do you also believe that women can only be saved by this ability?
“Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:15
He was a scientist, and though he read and attempted to understand theology, he never claimed to be a theologian. What he did claim was that he always encountered God in the human soul, because the Divine imprint is within every soul.
I am not sure where you get the pantheism thing. Jung could not understand why Catholics were not more mentally healthy, because he saw that the Sacramental life of the Church provided all that the human psyche needs to be healthy.
His observations about the male and female components of the human soul are observations, just like astronomers observe the stars and document their activity.
Even Jesus had “feminine” aspects of his soul.
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" Matthew 23:37
Is that anticatholic?
B
buffalo
Guest
The Case for Adam and Eve
Genetics, morphology and archaeology—what does science say about the primeval couple?We’ll get to some new research shortly that provides evidence of a dramatically reduced “age of Eve.” First, though, it is a stunning admission by evolutionary scientists that all humans descended from just one woman, c. 200,000 years ago. After all, according to the evolutionary theory, the “earliest humans” are believed to have emerged 2.5 million years ago. So how do scientists explain it? As Josh Clark asked in his article “Are We All Descended From a Common Female Ancestor?”, “How is it that only about 200,000 years ago a single woman became the great-grandmother of us all? Shouldn’t human history go further back than that?”
Such an assessment is extraordinary. That after 2 million years-plus of human evolution—not including prior common ancestors—our human race would narrow down to just one single female’s lineage, somewhere in the realm of 200,000 years ago. That’s certainly quite a “bottleneck,” and the explanation beggars belief.
So, according to Sanford and Carter, if we are to abide by a reasonable mutational clock, our mitochondrial Eve easily dates back within 6,000 years— the exact biblical time frame for mother Eve.
The numbers speak for themselves. Modern males are approximately 300 mutations away from Y-chromosome “Adam”; perhaps one mutation, maybe more, per generation. Modern females are up to 200 mutations away from mitochondrial Eve; perhaps 0.5 mutations, maybe slightly more or less, per generation. What do we find? We have a “nearest common ancestor” time frame that remarkably fits into biblical chronology. An “Eve” and an “Adam,” so to speak (or, more properly, Noah ).
Loading…
watchjerusalem.co.il
B
buffalo
Guest
Dust of the Ground, Bone of my Bones
So we have our earliest common ancestors, according to genetics. Segueing into a slightly different subject: Where did they come from—literally? The Bible says that the first man was formed “out of the dust of the ground.” What has science shown?"Experts have been able to determine that the human body is made up of 25 elements, every one essential for human life. Every one of these elements is found in the Earth’s soil. According to biblical chronology, the statement that man came from the dust of the ground was “penned” at the hand of Moses c. 3,400 years ago. Yet it wasn’t until 1982, when it was confirmed that every element in man is found in the soil, prompting one scientist to famously remark: “[T]he biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be not far off the mark.” The Case for Adam and Eve - Watch Jerusalem
W
Wozza
Guest
Utterly, laughably, incomprehensively, mind boggingly, jaw droppingly, horrifyingly wrong.
I’m definitely outa here. This is too much too take. Post as much nonsense as you want. Just keep shovelling it from wherever you dig it up.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
J
Juvenal
Guest
Back in the day, when a mitochondrial Eve was first posited by Rebecca Cann et al., I had a chance to discuss this ancienne femme with one of Rebecca’s graduate students. Much to my delight, the argument for her existence is almost entirely mathematical.
Let M be all the mothers alive today, and let M(M) be all the mothers of those mothers.
Then M, M(M), M(M(M)), … is a strictly positive, non-increasing sequence.
It’s non-increasing because no woman can have more than one mother, and strictly positive because every woman has a mother. Such a sequence must either decrease or remain constant, but to remain constant, some generation must have consisted entirely of women who did not share any common maternal ancestor. Not ever. Not even across speciation boundaries.
The implication is that the sequence converges to one woman, whom we can call mitochondrial Eve, or mtEve.
This is true for any human maternal lineage at any time, and more generally for any species with gender-specific inheritance of mitochondrial DNA. What’s not true is the suggestion this mtEve is uniquely fixed across time. The generation that included our mtEve had its own mtEve, and that generation had its own mtEve as well, a sequence of mtEves that certainly extends back to our common ancestors with other modern-day species.
Having read over Stoeckle and Thaler when it was first posted here, combined with what I know of mitochondrial inheritance from Cann’s student and independent reading, I hazard a guess that what they’ve found is that the “mtEves” of a cohort of species share a similar winnowing timeframe.
It’s definitely a result worth watching.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No we don’t. Even if the study is correct, and even if you interpret the result to mean a founding pair at that time (which the authors do not say), nothing in the study indicates that pair did not have parents of their own. In fact, you know, I am reasonably confident they did.
B
buffalo
Guest
What if the MT clock was at zero?
O
o_mlly
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
Your welcome but evolutionary theory for atheists does apparently negate those verses. It’s an explanation or way out, i.e., without God, based on materialistic naturalism and scientism of explaining how the world came to be as we observe it today. I never said that the case is the same for theistic evolutionists. Both you and LeafbyNiggle are reading into what I wrote something I never said or meant to say. So, in this sense, both of you are interpreting what I wrote incorrectly.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
I believe it was on this thread that I posted something I heard from Fr. Spitzer on EWTN earlier this year. The question was raised about how many scientists are atheists. Fr. Spitzer answered that the scientific community is about 50/50 split between atheists and believers in God or some supreme power or being. Edwest followed up with a post concerning a survey that was taken, if my memory serves me correctly, among some british prestigious society of scientists. The results of the respondents was that 92% of them I believe were atheists. IMHO, this raises a red flag in a certain manner concerning the theories coming out of the modern scientific endeavor and community and particularly cosmic evolution although according to their own branch of study and method this may be the only theory they can resort too. However, there is more to reality than what the modern natural sciences study and their methods as there are other branches of study and science of a more universal nature even such as philosophy and metaphysics and the highest wisdom and queen of all the sciences, namely, the science of sacred theology based on divine revelation. “This doctrine [sacred theology] is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely” (St Thomas Aquinas).
It is written ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10). True wisdom is a gift from on high, from God, as Solomon states:
'When I considered these things inwardly, and thought upon them in my mind [speaking of wisdom]…I went about seeking how to get her for myself…But I perceived that I would not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me – and it was a mark of insight to know whose gift she was – so I appealed to the Lord and besought him, and with my whole heart I said:
"O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by thy word,
and by thy wisdom hast formed man, to have dominion over the creatures thou hast made…
With thee is wisdom, who knows thy works and was present when thou didst make the world, and who understand what is pleasing in thy sight and what is right according to thy commandments.
Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from the throne of thy glory send her, that she may be with me and toil, and that I may learn what is pleasing to thee.
For she knows and understands all things, and she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her glory" (Wisdom 8: 17,21; 9: 1-2, 9-11).
Solomon recounts that it was through the gift of wisdom from on high that he understood the ‘secrets’ of the nature of the world and of its creatures:
'For it is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements;
the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons,
the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars,
the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts, the powers of spirits and the reasonings of men, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots;
I learned both what is secret and what is manifest,
for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me’ (Wisdom 7: 17-22).
I believe it was on this thread that I posted something I heard from Fr. Spitzer on EWTN earlier this year. The question was raised about how many scientists are atheists. Fr. Spitzer answered that the scientific community is about 50/50 split between atheists and believers in God or some supreme power or being. Edwest followed up with a post concerning a survey that was taken, if my memory serves me correctly, among some british prestigious society of scientists. The results of the respondents was that 92% of them I believe were atheists. IMHO, this raises a red flag in a certain manner concerning the theories coming out of the modern scientific endeavor and community and particularly cosmic evolution although according to their own branch of study and method this may be the only theory they can resort too. However, there is more to reality than what the modern natural sciences study and their methods as there are other branches of study and science of a more universal nature even such as philosophy and metaphysics and the highest wisdom and queen of all the sciences, namely, the science of sacred theology based on divine revelation. “This doctrine [sacred theology] is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely” (St Thomas Aquinas).
It is written ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10). True wisdom is a gift from on high, from God, as Solomon states:
'When I considered these things inwardly, and thought upon them in my mind [speaking of wisdom]…I went about seeking how to get her for myself…But I perceived that I would not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me – and it was a mark of insight to know whose gift she was – so I appealed to the Lord and besought him, and with my whole heart I said:
"O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by thy word,
and by thy wisdom hast formed man, to have dominion over the creatures thou hast made…
With thee is wisdom, who knows thy works and was present when thou didst make the world, and who understand what is pleasing in thy sight and what is right according to thy commandments.
Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from the throne of thy glory send her, that she may be with me and toil, and that I may learn what is pleasing to thee.
For she knows and understands all things, and she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her glory" (Wisdom 8: 17,21; 9: 1-2, 9-11).
Solomon recounts that it was through the gift of wisdom from on high that he understood the ‘secrets’ of the nature of the world and of its creatures:
'For it is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements;
the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons,
the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars,
the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts, the powers of spirits and the reasonings of men, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots;
I learned both what is secret and what is manifest,
for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me’ (Wisdom 7: 17-22).
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
But clearly i haven’t made any argument against the idea that genesis is a poetic description of God’s creative act. Again and again i have spoke of the figurative nature of genesis. I argued only against the idea that God’s creative act literally happened in the way that genesis portrays it. That is not me arguing against the bible, that’s me recognizing genesis for what it really is.
I really don’t understand your insistence on judging me a fundamentalist. You made a mistake about my intentions. You have jumped to a conclusion that was not evident in my argument. And now you are arguing against a straw-man…
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Nobody was discrediting the book of genesis, unless of course you are a fundamentalist who believes that God literally by fiat created all the different “kinds” of creatures directly over the course of six days as opposed to God allowing different kinds to naturally evolve over billions of years. In that case yes, your interpretation of genesis has been discredited whether you like it or not. .
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
You weren’t addressing me but I have to say that you sure sound like one given your limited interpretation of Genesis, projected onto others. Both Genesis and the science are true; evolution which is an interpretation of the data, is faulty in its portrayal of how creation works.
God did literally by fiat create all the different “kinds” of creatures directly over the course of six days, which we interpret in different ways. God did not create different kinds of things to naturally evolve over billions of years. Electrons and quarks did not bring themselves into existence and did not by their own inherent properties bring about the existence of the atom. Atoms did not arrange themselves into cells, and cells did not by chance originally develop individual properties to go on and organize themselves as tissues, brought together as organs operating together in a holistic manner, all thirteen trillion cells, to create the first person. I would suggest you truly consider that more importantly than being discredited by human beings, the idea of evolution is simply false, whether you like it or not.
Last edited:
- Status