Guest Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo. What do you guys think of this video....If science proves there wasn't a first human then how does that work out with Adam and Eve? Was the story allegory? Did God give Adam and Eve the first souls amongst all the humans that had evolved? Or? Thanks for your thoughts....Peace... Edited April 22, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133726-creation-and-science/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The video is a joke. There's no real science there, but rather a vague attempt at an interpretation of one of Dawkins' books. It seems to be making the claim that there was no first human, because if we had been living at the time we could not have seen a difference between what we would now consider one species and what we would now consider another. It uses the analogy (briefly, and improperly) of the difference between a child and an adult. If we conclude that analogy, we would have to maintain that if you categorize human life into 2 main phases (child and adult), that you could never make a claim that one was a child one moment, and then an adult the next. However, many laws exist which define those moments. The problem is not that the transformation exists, but only where we choose to define that transformation. Once you realize that, you can easily see the whole premise is flawed. Add to that the lack of any mention whatsoever of the currently held belief in science that major changes in evolution happen somewhat abruptly, and everything in this video just falls to pieces - even for evolutionists. Really, what this video is saying, if it's saying anything at all, is that some people are unwilling to adhere to a definition of differences of species. Following that same logic, we might as well stop breaking up the history of the world into different periods (cretaceous, etc...), and stop classifying different species of beasts at all (there is no real difference between myself and a fish), and start classifying all people to belong to the same religion, which, because there are no real differences there, would include atheists, deists, muslims, christians, jews, etc...). Then we should remove any reference to a country somebody lives in, because there's no real difference between Europe and Australia and Antarctica. Pretty soon all you're left with is a simple statement: Everything is stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo. What do you guys think of this video....If science proves there wasn't a first human then how does that work out with Adam and Eve? Was the story allegory? Did God give Adam and Eve the first souls amongst all the humans that had evolved? Or? Thanks for your thoughts....Peace... The whole phrase "first human" thing is kind of misleading. Obviously we have humans. We ARE humans. He is basically saying there is no definitive "LOOK THIS IS WHEN THE GENE THING CHANGED TO MAKE THE LEGS PART LOOK LIKE HUMAN STUFF" This is because evolution happens over a looooooooooooong period of time and is observed on a population level, not on an individual level. I think his analogy of the growing old bit was pretty spot on. Just imagine taking a picture everyday of your life and then asking to pin point the location at which you became an adult. Its kind hard mostly because its such a gradual transition. Thats kind of how evolution works. Little tiny changes add up over millions of years. The video is a joke. There's no real science there, but rather a vague attempt at an interpretation of one of Dawkins' books. It seems to be making the claim that there was no first human, because if we had been living at the time we could not have seen a difference between what we would now consider one species and what we would now consider another. It uses the analogy (briefly, and improperly) of the difference between a child and an adult. If we conclude that analogy, we would have to maintain that if you categorize human life into 2 main phases (child and adult), that you could never make a claim that one was a child one moment, and then an adult the next. However, many laws exist which define those moments. The problem is not that the transformation exists, but only where we choose to define that transformation. Once you realize that, you can easily see the whole premise is flawed. Add to that the lack of any mention whatsoever of the currently held belief in science that major changes in evolution happen somewhat abruptly, and everything in this video just falls to pieces - even for evolutionists. Really, what this video is saying, if it's saying anything at all, is that some people are unwilling to adhere to a definition of differences of species. Following that same logic, we might as well stop breaking up the history of the world into different periods (cretaceous, etc...), and stop classifying different species of beasts at all (there is no real difference between myself and a fish), and start classifying all people to belong to the same religion, which, because there are no real differences there, would include atheists, deists, muslims, christians, jews, etc...). Then we should remove any reference to a country somebody lives in, because there's no real difference between Europe and Australia and Antarctica. Pretty soon all you're left with is a simple statement: Everything is stuff. I think youre getting caught up in wordness. The video is pretty understandable IMO. I think we get hung up on the Christian view of humans possibly? In the sense that humans have an everlasting soul. I believe that (if youre looking to genesis for a reference) the first humans (such as Adam and Eve) were the first biological beings to have a soul breathed into them. In THAT sense I think it is very clear that we can say "Oh they have a soul so now they are our First humans." I hope that makes sense...and this isnt any offical Catholic teaching, its just my own thoughts on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Why are you watching such videos JOSH? Go to mass and read the holy bible and examine your life and those lives Jesus grants to you on your path of life. :P information overload is not a humble abode, it is a festering bowl of cornflakes with mould on it and a loogie hock. :P keep it simple, keep it safe, without isolating. From one problem drinker to another. :) St paul. " beware of those who preach knowledge can save!" Konwledge of the enemy pfft, who needs it, we need jesus more. All glory to GOD. Edited April 24, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The whole phrase "first human" thing is kind of misleading. Obviously we have humans. We ARE humans. He is basically saying there is no definitive "LOOK THIS IS WHEN THE GENE THING CHANGED TO MAKE THE LEGS PART LOOK LIKE HUMAN STUFF" This is because evolution happens over a looooooooooooong period of time and is observed on a population level, not on an individual level. I think his analogy of the growing old bit was pretty spot on. Just imagine taking a picture everyday of your life and then asking to pin point the location at which you became an adult. Its kind hard mostly because its such a gradual transition. Thats kind of how evolution works. Little tiny changes add up over millions of years. I think youre getting caught up in wordness. The video is pretty understandable IMO. I think we get hung up on the Christian view of humans possibly? In the sense that humans have an everlasting soul. I believe that (if youre looking to genesis for a reference) the first humans (such as Adam and Eve) were the first biological beings to have a soul breathed into them. In THAT sense I think it is very clear that we can say "Oh they have a soul so now they are our First humans." I hope that makes sense...and this isnt any offical Catholic teaching, its just my own thoughts on the matter. I'm not arguing semantics - and I didn't have a problem understanding what the video was proposing - just offering an explanation on why I thought it was a bunk idea. So you believe that we did, in fact, evolve from a lower species, and at some point along the line, God simply gave us a soul? I suppose that's an acceptable belief. I don't see a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Yes that is what I believe. God used evolution to form us to his likeness and boom! Soul insertion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Historian Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I believe that (if youre looking to genesis for a reference) the first humans (such as Adam and Eve) were the first biological beings to have a soul breathed into them. In THAT sense I think it is very clear that we can say "Oh they have a soul so now they are our First humans." Do you believe that every human being (with a body and a soul) who has ever lived are descendant of Adam and Eve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The Bible says God made mankind in His image. What does this mean? I've always looked at it this way—God is spirit, he doesn't have a physical body (until the incarnation). We are made in his image by virtue of our souls, which are an image of his infinite spirit. The physical creation of the body isn't whats important, it is the creation of the soul which is the divine spark and image of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The Bible says God made mankind in His image. What does this mean? I've always looked at it this way—God is spirit, he doesn't have a physical body (until the incarnation). We are made in his image by virtue of our souls, which are an image of his infinite spirit. The physical creation of the body isn't whats important, it is the creation of the soul which is the divine spark and image of God. But weren't we made with the Incarnation in mind? I can't help thinking there's something to that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Meant to post in other thread Edited April 25, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 But weren't we made with the Incarnation in mind? I can't help thinking there's something to that... Probably. What do I know? :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Do you believe that every human being (with a body and a soul) who has ever lived are descendant of Adam and Eve? Well, since Adam and Eve (as well as the creation in Genesis) are part of Hebrew poetry and not really meant to be taken super literally, Id have to say that.... Id have to look into it. :) I dont trust my old memory recall on the subject where evolution is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now