>according to the proddie YEC logic, evolution couldn't

also /hereticsbtfo/ thread

>>651555
Nice trips you pagan

literally a non-issue back in reality

File: 1432422009235.png (228KB, 499x698px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 499x698px

>>651555

>lol dumb proddies, us Catholics are hyperrational because we don't believe in creation myths and-...

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

BY OUR FIRST PARENTS

>>651686
Human bodies can evolve, this is referring to the fact that rational souls were given to some two individuals back in the time. There is literally nothing wrong with the Catholic Church

>it's a christfags fight amongst themselves thread

>>651749
Still a faith position and one completely at odds with science. Pope Pius endorsed monogenism although there is absolutely no evidence of such a genetic bottleneck anywhere in human history.

"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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

Please don't be so smug and mocking towards other denominations.

>>651561
Christians always (deliberately) misread Isaiah 7:14 to make it sound like its something that's going to happen in the future, despite the Hebrew of the verse being very clear that the conception involved happened in the past.

>>651787

You forgot to mention how the onky barrier between humans and animals is in the soul. Physically, they could be part of a bigger population, they would just have souls.

>>651555
>evolution is steered by the environment
>God absolutely controls the environment
>God absolutely controls evolution

>>651787
>Pope Pius endorsed monogenism
Monogenism doesnt imply such bottleneck. One could have Adam living in a population of biological humans and simply have his genes (or soul) pass on to every descendant of that population

>>651555
>proddies YEC

You can be Catholic or Orthodox and be a YEC. They do exist.

Catholics created YEC doctrines and believed them pretty much until late 19th century.

>>651555
Here's one I've realized that's fun

>according to proddie logic, the only thing we need is the bible, and a personal relationship with Jesus.
>Jesus did not give his followers a copy of the bible.
>Jesus also allowed his followers to do things that distracted from their personal relationship with him, such as observe passover, and pray.

Wouldn't, for the first Christians, prayer be forbidden, according to proddie logic?

>>652312
That must mean there are humans alive today with no souls

File: 3+st+christopher+dog+head.jpg (128KB, 400x755px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 400x755px

Just go pray to your dog headed saint who "is in heaven" pagans.

>>653315
The fuck is that?!

>>653315
That can't be real. I mean I know about the dragon/serpent artwork in catholic churches but they don't literally have a dog headed saint do they?

>>653350
If they do, it's like Santa Muerte, not officially endorsed at best, condemned as Hersey at worst,

>>653350
>This Byzantine depiction of St. Christopher as dog-headed resulted from their misinterpretation of the Latin term Cananeus (Canaanite) to read canineus (canine).

>>652019
>>653292

>>653357
Huh. Funny.

>>653350
Aren't those usually getting stepped on, stabbed or otherwise BTFO'd by Jesus, His mom or Archangel Michael?

>>653379
Probably most of the time, yeah. I'm honestly not an expert on Catholic artwork. But I've seen an example of a dragon's head on full display, but the dragon was cleverly disguised to not be obvious. I thought I saved the picture, but I guess I didn't. How convenient, I know

File: download (8).jpg (5KB, 190x144px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 190x144px

>>653373

File: image.jpg (1MB, 1492x2052px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1492x2052px

>>653405

File: 1375000104120.jpg (82KB, 625x1252px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 625x1252px

>>651686
>It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend.

That's incorrect. The genre of parts of the creation story are, in fact, "myth" or traditional story and have been understood as such for a very long time. But "myth" does not mean "completely made up" but based on some elements of truth. It should be no surprise which the Creation Narrative is written akin to poetry in that time. Your quote even affirms that:

>"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event"
The Catholic Church actually upholds certain elements that are true events from those stories, of which being the "first parents". However the church separates monogenism explicitly from the idea of a population bottleneck of a particular form of "man" and understands it as also possibly a common biological ancestor between all people that originally given "rational souls" hence >>651749 telling you this already and your link's Humani Generis quote referring to "true men".

This is not a genetic bottleneck as you mention >>651787 but the idea of a common ancestral pair within that pool, which is still very possible despite you fighting the idea in >>653292

There are quite a few studies on Most Recent Common Ancestors and nothing to rule the idea out whatsoever.

>>653447
>However the church separates monogenism explicitly from the idea of a population bottleneck of a particular form of "man" and understands it as also possibly a common biological ancestor between all people that originally given "rational souls" hence >>651749 telling you this already and your link's Humani Generis quote referring to "true men".

Can you elaborate on this please. It doesn't make much sense

t. idiot

>>653447
>This is not a genetic bottleneck as you mention >>651787 (You) but the idea of a common ancestral pair within that pool, which is still very possible despite you fighting the idea in >>653292

It's a legitimate question, I don't understand why you are dismissing it. (the quesiton of whether or not all modern humans have souls, that is)

>>653447
Didn't Adam an Eve have bodily immortality (donum immortalis) before the Fall?

>>653447
"Soul" must have existed before Homo sapiens, as Homo erectus already shows signs of modern behaviour. And we know jackshit about other MRCAs than the one of modern H. sapiens.

File: MRCA.png (69KB, 631x531px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 631x531px

>>653515
The church isn't explicit in its understanding of monogenism but does assert that there was a pair we are all descendant from. There are then two understandings of it:

>they were the first and only pair of humans that procreated and bore the rest of humanity

This is the common view, but it suffers issue with a population bottleneck that we simply don't see evidence of and also works against what we know of the world.

>They are a pair within the pool of ancestors that first had a specific trait that, because of them passing it down, we all have now. This trait being our rational soul.

This is still very possible. There are many studies on common individual ancestors between large pools of people and multiple on the potential of a worldwide one, but us being able to accurately tell this relies on us being able to control for all societies and we aren't sure if there are still isolated tribes out there. Either way it's still a good possibility despite >>653292 assuming otherwise and thinking there would be people left out of this.


>>653520
?
I confronted just that. The poster said no question but rather said what a claim "must mean". I said that there was a still a real possibility of it and implied that he was making an assumption just right out of hand.

>>653538
That is a theological opinion that you see get passed around that is in no way doctrine.

>>653547
>signs
You can see glimpses of human behavior in most mammals. All natural things have souls. We're not talking about the "creation of the soul" but something specific. I don't claim to be learned enough to give an argument for dating but simply show that there is much possibility.

The Scriptures teach, the universe was created in six consecutive 24 hour days.

If one were to reject the Biblical teaching of Creation, what other Biblical truths do you also reject?

File: Moderately hype.png (27KB, 280x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 280x500px

>>653606
>The Scriptures teach, the universe was created in six consecutive 24 hour days.

What is the genre of the text that says this?

>>653618
Genesis 1,Authorized version

File: 1343795390889.png (41KB, 203x278px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 203x278px

>>653643

>>653571
Are you referring to mitochondrial eve and chromosomal Adam? You do realise their lineage only extends to members of their respective genders and that the existence of human culture and art predate them?

If not, I would be very interested in seeing these studies you refer to

>>653655
>Are you referring to mitochondrial eve and chromosomal Adam?

No, they are just the most recent. I'm very aware of what they are limited to.

>>653665
Studies you referred to then please. I feel like you're talking out of your ass

>>653675
?
The studies I mention deal with the potential there being a common ancestor to a pool of people and potentially a worldwide one for humanity. Here's some stuff I could pull together on short notice:

http://steveolson.com/uploads/2009/04/nature-common-ancestors2.pdf

Further, the sheer existence of a chromosomal adam and mitochondrial eve should downright prove the reality of common descent. There is no way in which both could be the case without such a thing. And the C.A/M.E. are just the most recent common ancestor anyway.

>>653704
Genetic Adam and Eve didn't have children together though

File: world's best dad.jpg (92KB, 448x557px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 448x557px

>>653721
Obviously. The names are just references. Just because the two labeled the beginning of most recent unbroken chains didn't mate together says nothing against the idea of common descent before or after them. The labels are meant to speak about something else entirely.

>>653732
The Heat is a b-ball team, what's this "field goal" shit?

>>653741
Fuck if I know, the picture was just funny to me. I do't follow basketball.

>>653732
This is getting ridiculously hazy. Is this what the catechism affirms?

File: profile.png (179KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 300x300px

>>653749
see
>>653571

>The church isn't explicit in its understanding of monogenism but does assert that there was a pair we are all descendant from.

I go into it more here >>653447 and the person I'm responding to references the Catechism, which I also do in that post.

>>653447
>It should be no surprise which the Creation Narrative is written akin to poetry in that time.

It is carefully structured but it doesn't display the parallelism or figurative language typical of biblical poetry, so it's more accurate to treat it as narrative prose.

>>653773
Fair point, bad example.

>>653756
I'm still struggling to pin your actual position down. Are you saying Adam and Eve were members of a pool and spread original sin to them magically?

>>653838
A pair in the pool with common descent to all people that passed on both our rational souls and our "fallen nature".

>>653843
So for a considerable time after the fall there were humans without a fallen nature?
How was it spread to the rest of those in the pool?
On phone so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here

>>653741
"Field goal" is the technical term for when you score in basketball, people just usually don't call it that

File: 1439005644001.jpg (76KB, 494x642px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 494x642px

>>651555

>>653864

In this interpretation of it, yes, and it would spread through breeding. Hence my posting the chart on how common descent works here >>653571

I would stress there a distinction of "humans" as classically a distinctive element of our nature as human is our rational soul. This is why there is a mention of "true men" in >>653447

But it's late and I need to head out. Goodnight, man.

>>653881
I see. I'm not entirely sold and I would need to research this. Appreciate you taking the time to explain, though

File: 1431138361519.png (136KB, 477x463px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 477x463px

>>652209
That gesture isn't even satanic. Throughout history people have used it to ward off bad luck, sickness or demons.

It does appear in some forms of witchcraft, but it was primarily used for protection from bad things.

>>653881
And this pair that spiritually jeopardized their offspring happened to be the same ones whose lineage, after taking thousands of years to enter the gene pool, now covers the entire human race? (assuming such a pair existed; I can assure you there is nothing to affirm that they did)

Chronologically it seems out of sync, for one thing. We can trace the first artwork back 500,000 years ago with Homo Erectus, for example. Isn't that evidence of intellect that could pass for a 'rational soul'?

I mean, it's not impossible. But it still requires a pretty fucking big leap.

Wow, Papists being Darwinists as well as idolaters, what a shock

>>655706
>Catholics
>Darwinists

>>653606
That argument presupposes a theory of language (crude semantic externalism) that the historical writers of the Bible did not have nor could have had. You're an idiot.

>>655468
>I mean, it's not impossible. But it still requires a pretty fucking big leap.

I don't see why. We have multiple examples of common descent of all people. But as for identifying the "rational soul" I cannot get far into this talk. I'm not too learned in talk of the soul. I'm sorry.

>>655741
Do you not think god is capable of creating the universe in 6 days?

>>653292
Proofs? They went extinct, which probably happened fast, considering that Bible doesn't even mention anything like that and that no human nations known are soulless

>>657580
Back at my desk.

The interpretation you're referring to is the Flynn-Kemp proposal.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2014/12/21/adam-and-eve-continued/

That blog post shares my sentiment that while not impossible, the scenario is certainly not plausible, and there is nothing besides doctrine to affirm that it took place. It's possible, but then again so is the multiverse hypothesis.

When you consider the fact that doctrine stipulates that Adam required a certain knowledge of God and had to be accompanied by Eve you can't just point to the MRCA and stop there. And then there's the question of timing. But as you suggested that's a discussion for another time.

I will concede that I was wrong to lump Catholic doctrine into the same boat as YECs.

On a side note, do you think this interpretation of the Fall will ever become the mainstream? Every Catholic source I consulted affirmed strict monogenism, and it seems the Church has only recently relaxed their stance on this too (compare the CCC with the Baltimore Catechism for instance)

>>658686
I found a more detailed response to Flynn-Kemp here:
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/kemp.html

>>657580
Wolfshiem, if you're still around/interested I made a thread on /sci/ on this topic:
>>>/sci/7838204