Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 25, 2013, 02:48:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
 
Author Topic: Adam and evolution  (Read 2151 times)
Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member

Gender: Female
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484


Ask dad; he knows.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2007, 04:13:AM »

Quote from: VetusOrdo
We all know that God is not the author of death. Death came into the world because of Original Sin. This single fact of faith is incompatible with evolution, because if Adam evolved from other primates, that means that other primates were already dying in the first place, not to mention all the animals that populated the earth.

That has made me wonder. What would be the fate of animals if Adam hadn't sinned?

I understand (though I could be mistaken) that people would have "fallen asleep" and been assumed to Heaven, as per Our Lady, were it not for original sin.

But, what would have happened to animals?


Logged

miss_fluffy
Domina Frivola
Gold Fish
*
Personality type: Phlegmatic Mastermind
Posts: 5,269



« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2007, 10:09:AM »

Hi Clare,

Given the hypothetical of "if sin had never entered the world", I don't think there would be a separation between the earth and heaven.  Heaven was on earth during the time of Eden.  Perhaps God would have continued to create more and more heaven on earth, increased the size of the garden as animals and humans multiplied.

Of course, these hypotheticals can get really heady.  Don't consider my thoughts on the topic Catholic ideas.
Logged

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.– Buddha

Note: According to this precept, I find that Buddhism is NOT true.  I have tested and judged many things, and the only Truth I have found is in God's One True Church: The Catholic Church.

Dear Lord, I know I can live by Your Holy Will every moment of my life, because You have given me faith that Your Grace will enable me to.
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2008, 11:51:AM »

Quote from: DominusTecum

The universe is a closed system though, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds there. If you said that only a "closed system" could apply, you may as well disregard the entire law, because no system is truly closed. There is always some "outside influence." The law is applicable on Earth and everywhere, as I've always heard... Otherwise, what would be the purpose of suggesting such a law? "This is true, but it's never true." How much sense does that make?


What the heck does entropy have to do with evolution?
Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2008, 11:53:AM »

Quote from: Brennus
I'm trying other sources as well, and I am not getting any answers on this.

Basically, I am having a problem seeing how the idea that Adam was created by the infusion of a human soul into a non-human body, being created thus in a state of grace and possessing preternatural gifts of immortality andinfused knowledge, jives with being conceived by two pre-human parents, gestated, birthed and raised thus. I don't see. It's not that I don't want to see it. I'm completely comfortable with the idea that animal species have changed over the millenia. Doesn't bother me at all. I just want to be Catholic and consistent (that means logical.) I can't see how this is possible with the teaching of Adam being what it is. Perhaps i don't understand those teachings properly.

Also, if the soul is the form of the body . . . well maybe that is too much for now.

In a few days, I may make a decision on this. (I have a priest who is looking into it for me.)



Brennus, I have been asking the same question. Take a look at the topics I started regarding us having more than one set of first parents as well as Adam and Eve and Neanderthals. Tell me what you think?
Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2008, 12:02:PM »

Quote from: CredoUtIntelligam
Here is a book that addresses your concern.  It's been awhile since I read, but if I recall the solution is the following:

Once a species of hominid had evolved up to the point of being fit matter for the infusion of the rational soul, God infused a rational soul into the zygote of one of these hominids in utero, thus changing it into a human being.  He interprets Eve being created from Adam's rib, as a second zygote splitting from the first.  So Eve comes from the "side" of Adam when she was twinned.  But it is a special case of twinning since they were obviously not identical twins.  Eve had to be given two X chromosomes in this process.  But the author says this is no more strange than the Blessed Virgin conceiving by the Holy Ghost. 

I thought it was a pretty clever explanation myself.  He doesn't speculate on what happens after this, but you there are quite a few ways of filling in the story.  The hard part is dealing with the act of creation.  Of course all of this is nothing more than conjecture attempting to fill in the gaps left by what we know for certain from revelation. 

You can read the book and see for yourself.  It might give you some peace of mind.  After I read it I realized that after all of the elaborate hypotheses you still end up with "God did it".  I would follow the advice of the desert father someone quoted earlier.


That's pretty neat, but it still doesn't resolve the question of Adam and Eve being raised by non-human hominids and Eden having ape men bounding about in it with no mention of these ape-men or Neanderthals in scripture. Yet we have fossils for them and know they existed. It is completely confusing.

We know Eden was in Mesopotamia, or present day Iraq. Perhaps modern rational man was created from mud there, but archeologists have the earliest skeletons of the homo sapien species in Africa.

I just don't see how the two stories reconcile. You'd have to take a REALLY liberal reading of Genesis or else ignore the fossil record.
Logged


ggreg
Member

Gender: Female
Posts: 10,611

Quit since the forum went tranny tender


« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2008, 03:49:PM »

Or perhaps the dating methods are up the spout.

It seems to me that scientists are pretty selective about what evidence they admit.  If it fits their doctrines it gets accepted but if it doesn't it is rejected as error or anomaly.

It is possible that all the scientific dating methods are in fact based on and calibrated from one another and somewhere along the line a huge error has been made in an assumption.  (Geological strata for example).

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC