Evidence for God from Science

It should be noted that IF the flood was global, the issue of Adam and Eve is irrelevant since the world population would be based on Noah and his family.

Morny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Mel,

I believe the official position of the Catholic Church says Adam and Eve were real people.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Maybe Byblos would know a little more.

Yes, the literal Adam and Eve is de fide. But this does not preclude traditional evolutionary understanding since a literal Adam and Eve could literally have been the first man and woman made in God's image (i.e. as in spiritual image).

I strongly doubt that http://www.catholic.com represents "the official position of the Catholic Church". Even the Jesuits would find humor with the website's creationist ramblings, for example, the page that lists "... scientific objections to evolution ...".

But let's assume that the Catholic Church, or anyone for that matter, believes in evolution and also a spiritual Adam and Eve, i.e., the first mating pair with souls.

How does that work exactly?!

Adam and Eve would share at least 99.999% of their DNA with their parents. So with less than a .001% DNA difference, the parents are left off the list of those receiving souls? Really?

And what about Adam and Eve's children? The science of genetics shows that a single mating pair could not be the ancestor of all humans. So those kids would have had to have mated with pre-spiritual (soul-less) "humans". If you thought devout Christian parents would be aghast at their daughter bringing home a nice Jewish boy, can you imagine Adam and Eve's dismay when their daughter's date didn't have a soul?

I think you're conflating soul and spirit.

The Hebrew ( OT and NT) view of "soul" is that every living and breathing mammal has a soul, or more correctly IS a living soul or becomes a soul.
What makes humans distinct is that we have a spirit also.
The spirit is immortal, when we die it returns to God, the soul CAN be destroyed.
The thing is that in humans, soul and spirit are NOT something separate, but different sides to the same coin sort of speaking.

RickD wrote:I think you're conflating soul and spirit.

OK, fine. The same argument applies to spirit.

Morny wrote:

RickD wrote:I think you're conflating soul and spirit.

OK, fine. The same argument applies to spirit.

Reconciling what has been proven about evolution and the creation of man is never easy of course, especially since the Genesis account is not a scientific statement on creation but a theological one.

That said, as I mentioned before, the issue is not so much one of Adam and Eve but the decedents of Noah (if we view the flood as global).
But to address your question of IF Adam and Eve were simply the fist to receive a spirit from God, what does that mean?
Well, it means that when Adam and Eve received that ( whenever it was) they received it FIRST before EVERYONE else in the Garden of Eden.
Wren did everyone else receive it?
We don't know, we just know that according to Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were the first.
We do NOT know when they got it, when they were created or how long they were in the Garden and what was happening outside the garden (Unless we see the statement in Genesis 1:26-30 as a statement on that part).

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

RickD wrote:I think you're conflating soul and spirit.

OK, fine. The same argument applies to spirit.

Reconciling what has been proven about evolution and the creation of man is never easy of course, especially since the Genesis account is not a scientific statement on creation but a theological one.

That said, as I mentioned before, the issue is not so much one of Adam and Eve but the decedents of Noah (if we view the flood as global).
But to address your question of IF Adam and Eve were simply the fist to receive a spirit from God, what does that mean?
Well, it means that when Adam and Eve received that ( whenever it was) they received it FIRST before EVERYONE else in the Garden of Eden.
Wren did everyone else receive it?
We don't know, we just know that according to Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were the first.
We do NOT know when they got it, when they were created or how long they were in the Garden and what was happening outside the garden (Unless we see the statement in Genesis 1:26-30 as a statement on that part).

As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed anything in my argument.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

RickD wrote:I think you're conflating soul and spirit.

OK, fine. The same argument applies to spirit.

Reconciling what has been proven about evolution and the creation of man is never easy of course, especially since the Genesis account is not a scientific statement on creation but a theological one.

That said, as I mentioned before, the issue is not so much one of Adam and Eve but the decedents of Noah (if we view the flood as global).
But to address your question of IF Adam and Eve were simply the fist to receive a spirit from God, what does that mean?
Well, it means that when Adam and Eve received that ( whenever it was) they received it FIRST before EVERYONE else in the Garden of Eden.
Wren did everyone else receive it?
We don't know, we just know that according to Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were the first.
We do NOT know when they got it, when they were created or how long they were in the Garden and what was happening outside the garden (Unless we see the statement in Genesis 1:26-30 as a statement on that part).

As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed anything in my argument.

How so?

Lets see what you wrote:

Adam and Eve would share at least 99.999% of their DNA with their parents. So with less than a .001% DNA difference, the parents are left off the list of those receiving souls? Really?

Two views:
1) Adam and Eve were special creations, so that isn't an issue there.
2) Adam and Eve were the first fully evolved humans and thus received a spirit OR the first human to be born with a spirit.
In option 2, that God decided to give them a spirit and not their parents isn't an issue because God decided the appropriate time for things.

And what about Adam and Eve's children? The science of genetics shows that a single mating pair could not be the ancestor of all humans. So those kids would have had to have mated with pre-spiritual (soul-less) "humans". If you thought devout Christian parents would be aghast at their daughter bringing home a nice Jewish boy, can you imagine Adam and Eve's dismay when their daughter's date didn't have a soul?

Refer back to the Noah and flood view for repopulation.
As for Adam and Eve's children bringing back someone without a spirit ( I know you said soul but that has been cleared up already, I hope), well, I addressed a counter to that view in my earlier post, so...

The thing is that it is clear that the notion of ALL mankind being from two people a very close time ago, is being shown over and over to be very very unlikely.
We would have to take into account VAST migrations of masses of people to repopulate the earth after the flood.
The math really isn't there, nor is the geography of it.

PaulSacramento wrote:The thing is that it is clear that the notion of ALL mankind being from two people a very close time ago, is being shown over and over to be very very unlikely.
We would have to take into account VAST migrations of masses of people to repopulate the earth after the flood.
The math really isn't there, nor is the geography of it.

From eight people, actually.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The thing is that it is clear that the notion of ALL mankind being from two people a very close time ago, is being shown over and over to be very very unlikely.
We would have to take into account VAST migrations of masses of people to repopulate the earth after the flood.
The math really isn't there, nor is the geography of it.

From eight people, actually.

Well, even 8 on all seriousness.

I mean, if we look only at Australia for example ( not even the Americas) it means that Noah decedents would have had to migrate to Australia and repopulate it ( and of course bring all those animals with them).

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The thing is that it is clear that the notion of ALL mankind being from two people a very close time ago, is being shown over and over to be very very unlikely.
We would have to take into account VAST migrations of masses of people to repopulate the earth after the flood.
The math really isn't there, nor is the geography of it.

From eight people, actually.

Well, even 8 on all seriousness.

I mean, if we look only at Australia for example ( not even the Americas) it means that Noah decedents would have had to migrate to Australia and repopulate it ( and of course bring all those animals with them).

Repopulate, yes. Bring animals, no. Of course I'm going on a local flood theory, where all humanity was killed, and all animals associated with humanity.

My son is a high school junior this year. What I've said is, don't' get combative but be able to articulate the material. One doesn't need to believe in evolution (I don't) to accurately state what the the theory encompasses or what various people believe about it. Also, I think it's important to note that supposedly "proving" evolution does not disprove God, as many Christians (and those of other faiths) also believe in evolution, as they believe that it was God's creative mechanism. Also, I've encouraged him is to also note that when it comes to debates over the existence of God, arguments over evolution are somewhere around 10 billion years after the FAR greater FACT - meaning that one must explain how a universe "exploded" into existence where there was none. And, where did the singularity come from? Where did the many, complex guiding processes and sophisticated, precise laws come from - laws that were there at the very beginning? So, I say, explain THOSE miraculous things (which mainstream science agrees occurred) and THEN we can argue the less important creation issues surrounding evolution.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The thing is that it is clear that the notion of ALL mankind being from two people a very close time ago, is being shown over and over to be very very unlikely.
We would have to take into account VAST migrations of masses of people to repopulate the earth after the flood.
The math really isn't there, nor is the geography of it.

From eight people, actually.

Well, even 8 on all seriousness.

I mean, if we look only at Australia for example ( not even the Americas) it means that Noah decedents would have had to migrate to Australia and repopulate it ( and of course bring all those animals with them).

Repopulate, yes. Bring animals, no. Of course I'm going on a local flood theory, where all humanity was killed, and all animals associated with humanity.

Not to make this about local VS Global since you know where I stand on that, but if it were global then unless God re-created animals in Australia, then they would have had to be brought in.

All that aside and back to the point, it is important to realize that Genesis was NOT written as a scientific statement that talks to us in the 21st century and it is wrong to view it that way.
We can't separate evolution ( change over time) from history and it is right to teach SOME of it in history, just like it is ok to teach some history in biology and physics and geology and so forth.

Some simply see GOD direct creative action in the "creatio ex nihlio" and see evolution as part of God's SUSTAINING action in "creatio continuo".