>according to the proddie YEC logic, evolution couldn't happen because it's by "chance" and the Bible says that "life was created by God"
>therefore painting chance (nature) and God as two antagonistic forces
>post yfw when you realise that YEC are basically Manichaeists
>lol dumb proddies, us Catholics are hyperrational because we don't believe in creation myths and-...
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
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
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.
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.
>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
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?
Just go pray to your dog headed saint who "is in heaven" pagans.
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
>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.
>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
>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)
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.
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.
That is a theological opinion that you see get passed around that is in no way doctrine.
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.
What is the genre of the text that says this?
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
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:
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.
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.
>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.
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
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.
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.
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.
>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.
Back at my desk.
The interpretation you're referring to is the Flynn-Kemp proposal.
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)