Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact

[Quaremerepulisti]

The proposed timescales are massive.  They render biblical history to be a single second on the day of organic life on earth.

And so???  Biblical history is intended to be the history of man, not the history of the universe.

There's no scientist in the world who suggests that the human race has two individuals as the parents of all humans who have lived since. 

Don't be ridiculous.  There are several scientists on this very forum who are saying just that.

[Sempronius]

The proposed timescales are massive.  They render biblical history to be a single second on the day of organic life on earth.

And so???  Biblical history is intended to be the history of man, not the history of the universe.

There's no scientist in the world who suggests that the human race has two individuals as the parents of all humans who have lived since. 

Don't be ridiculous.  There are several scientists on this very forum who are saying just that.

Are there scientists outside this forum that thinks so?

[Gardener]

The proposed timescales are massive.  They render biblical history to be a single second on the day of organic life on earth.

And so???  Biblical history is intended to be the history of man, not the history of the universe.

There's no scientist in the world who suggests that the human race has two individuals as the parents of all humans who have lived since. 

Don't be ridiculous.  There are several scientists on this very forum who are saying just that.

Are there scientists outside this forum that thinks so?

Yes, but they would not be true Scotsmen according to the scientific community at large. Cus after all, sarc/ how could someone who is a scientist believe something so idiotic? /sarc

[Greg]

The scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, contemporaneously.

Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true.  There may have been a couple of "bottlenecks" (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.  That's as small a population as our ancestors had, and it's not two individuals.

Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years.  This shows not only that any "Adam" and "Eve" (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes "coalesces" back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals.  It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

---

Does the Bible actually mean what it plainly says? If not then what is the trustworthiness of Scripture?  The idea of millions or billions of years simply is not found anywhere in Scripture; it is a concept derived from outside of the Bible.

And this IS a problem, because to the common man science appears to know far more about our origins, than Holy Scripture.  Why didn't God tell the writers of the Bible how old the earth was and that they were derived from ape like creatures?  By leaving it to science to tell us the truth, the Bible is made to look like a book of fairy tales.  Moreover, science is not even fixed.  It is not even defining this once and for all.  With enough "evidence" it could start telling the world that we were seeded by an alien race of intelligent super beings.  Which would be nothing like the Bible either.  It would be more like the gods of ancient pagans.

How can one then use the Bible to suggest that homosexuality or adultery are wrong.  Perhaps the story of Moses and the 10 commandments are all made up too.

The fossils are indisputable evidence of death—and not just of death, but carnivory, disease and suffering. There are remains that have tooth marks in them, and even animals fossilized in the process of eating other animals. There is evidence of disease, cancers, and infection; and general suffering from wounds, broken bones, etc.

Biblically, we are told that these things only began to happen after the Fall. The obvious implication of long-age belief is that God ordained death and suffering, before the Fall of man, but the Bible clearly states that it was Adam's actions that brought death into the world (Romans 5:12).

[Quaremerepulisti]

The proposed timescales are massive.  They render biblical history to be a single second on the day of organic life on earth.

And so???  Biblical history is intended to be the history of man, not the history of the universe.

There's no scientist in the world who suggests that the human race has two individuals as the parents of all humans who have lived since. 

Don't be ridiculous.  There are several scientists on this very forum who are saying just that.

Are there scientists outside this forum that thinks so?

At least in terms of opposition to evolution by random mutation, it's not difficult to find.

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory of Evolution

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

[Greg]

Are any of those 500 presenting evidence for a single pair of contemporaneous humans ?

[Quaremerepulisti]

The scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, contemporaneously.

Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true.  There may have been a couple of "bottlenecks" (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.  That's as small a population as our ancestors had, and it's not two individuals.

Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years.  This shows not only that any "Adam" and "Eve" (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes "coalesces" back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals.  It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

All true, although the exact size of the bottleneck is disputed and some estimates are lower than the number you gave.  And it gets even worse: the genetic evidence shows clear markers of common descent from primates in terms of things like pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses.  This evidence is so strong that its denial is unreasonable.  This poses no problem for Protestants who in essence reject rationality and believe in a God Who could plant fake fossil evidence in the ground "to test our faith", but it poses a real problem for Catholics who insist the assent of faith must be reasonable, not involving violent rejections of what we can know to be true via other means.  The typical reaction by some Catholics to simply dig in their in heels and ignore the scientific findings is not a wise one: it is the exact same type of kookishness you decry elsewhere.  They tell their children scientists are all full of BS; however, the children grow up and find their parents were flat-out lying to them and that scientists actually know what they are talking about.  Then, grown children tell their parents they are full of BS and leave the Faith.


The conclusion that seems to be mandated by the data is that after Adam and Eve and the Fall there must have been rampant bestiality in order to account for all the genetic diversity.  Maybe this is the sin that so provoked God's anger as to cause the Flood.  (We know it wasn't homosexuality, otherwise we would certainly already have suffered Flood II.)

Does the Bible actually mean what it plainly says? If not then what is the trustworthiness of Scripture?  The idea of millions or billions of years simply is not found anywhere in Scripture; it is a concept derived from outside of the Bible.

And do you expect God to have inspired the author with this knowledge?  Why or why not?  What is the idea the inspired author of Genesis is trying to convey?

And this IS a problem, because to the common man science appears to know far more about our origins, than Holy Scripture.  Why didn't God tell the writers of the Bible how old the earth was and that they were derived from ape like creatures?  By leaving it to science to tell us the truth, the Bible is made to look like a book of fairy tales.  Moreover, science is not even fixed.  It is not even defining this once and for all.  With enough "evidence" it could start telling the world that we were seeded by an alien race of intelligent super beings.  Which would be nothing like the Bible either.  It would be more like the gods of ancient pagans.

So you want the Bible to be a science textbook.  Scripture also doesn't mention anything about protons or electrons, or chemical reactions either.

The fossils are indisputable evidence of death—and not just of death, but carnivory, disease and suffering. There are remains that have tooth marks in them, and even animals fossilized in the process of eating other animals. There is evidence of disease, cancers, and infection; and general suffering from wounds, broken bones, etc.

Yes.

Biblically, we are told that these things only began to happen after the Fall.

No, we're not.

The obvious implication of long-age belief is that God ordained death and suffering, before the Fall of man, but the Bible clearly states that it was Adam's actions that brought death into the world (Romans 5:12).

That is an unreasonable interpretation.  You believe there was no cell death before the Fall?

[Quaremerepulisti]

Are any of those 500 presenting evidence for a single pair of contemporaneous humans ?

No.  What evidence do you think, even in theory, could be presented in favor of it?

[Greg]

So you want the Bible to be a science textbook.  Scripture also doesn't mention anything about protons or electrons, or chemical reactions either.

No, but I'd like it to be correct.  Either say nothing, or give a narrative that fits the truth.

Why should the inspired word of God not be correct?  He is God after all.  He knows.  Why give a narrative that is as unrelated to the truth as any ancient pagan's creation myth?

For the longest time, believing in Adam and Eve was as close to de-fide as makes no difference.  No teaching nun, or seminary director would have accepted your believing that the bible was in error and that Adam and Eve did not exist at the same time AND act as the parents for the whole world.  So in reality the words in the Bible were taken seriously enough that for most of Catholic history denying the belief of a created Adam and Eve would have got you censured, kicked out of school or seminary, or even punished for heresy.

Grossly unjust if, in fact, your belief fitted the "facts" as latter revealed by science.  You were right then, why in justice should you be punished for it?

Paragraph 375 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice."

Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

Genetic science says we have no first parents.  We are products of lots of parents, and beasts, who could not have committed any sin, nor been free of sin before they committed it.

[Greg]

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson5.htm

Read this and square it with science and justice?

[Quaremerepulisti]

Why should the inspired word of God not be correct?  He is God after all.  He knows.  Why give a narrative that is as unrelated to the truth as any ancient pagan's creation myth?

Scripture has both a Divine author, guaranteeing truth, and a human author, guaranteeing the exact meaning may not be clear to peoples living thousands of years later unfamiloar with language, idioms, forms, etc.

So in reality the words in the Bible were taken seriously enough that for most of Catholic history denying the belief of a created Adam and Eve would have got you censured, kicked out of school or seminary, or even punished for heresy.

The same was true for geocentrism.

Genetic science says we have no first parents.  We are products of lots of parents, and beasts, who could not have committed any sin, nor been free of sin before they committed it.

No, it doesn't.  It says our genetic ancestry can't be traced back to just two, which is a different  thing.

[Chestertonian]

So you want the Bible to be a science textbook.  Scripture also doesn't mention anything about protons or electrons, or chemical reactions either.

No, but I'd like it to be correct.  Either say nothing, or give a narrative that fits the truth.

Why should the inspired word of God not be correct?  He is God after all.  He knows.  Why give a narrative that is as unrelated to the truth as any ancient pagan's creation myth?

For the longest time, believing in Adam and Eve was as close to de-fide as makes no difference.  No teaching nun, or seminary director would have accepted your believing that the bible was in error and that Adam and Eve did not exist at the same time AND act as the parents for the whole world.  So in reality the words in the Bible were taken seriously enough that for most of Catholic history denying the belief of a created Adam and Eve would have got you censured, kicked out of school or seminary, or even punished for heresy.

Grossly unjust if, in fact, your belief fitted the "facts" as latter revealed by science.  You were right then, why in justice should you be punished for it?

Paragraph 375 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice."

Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

Genetic science says we have no first parents.  We are products of lots of parents, and beasts, who could not have committed any sin, nor been free of sin before they committed it.

a thing can be poetically true without being historically true

[Gardener]

One man from whose rib God fashioned one woman, and these two caused the Fall. If that's not true, then Baptism is bullshit and everything falls it would make the very entrance Sacrament into the faith would be based on a lie.

Further, the understanding of Christ as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve falls to pieces.

[Quaremerepulisti]

One man from whose rib God fashioned one woman, and these two caused the Fall. If that's not true, then Baptism is bullshit and everything falls it would make the very entrance Sacrament into the faith would be based on a lie.

Further, the understanding of Christ as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve falls to pieces.

So when non-Christians argue it isn't true based on scientific evidence, and therefore Baptism is bullshit and therefore everything else about Christianity is bullshit as well, how do you respond?  You can:

1) Argue that science itself is bullshit (using technology impossible to develop without current scientific understanding).
2) Admit science itself is fine, but rail on about "scientism" (a handy-dandy epithet to use against any scientific conclusion and/or evidence you don't like).
3) Claim, without evidence or argumentation, that naturalistic metaphysical assumptions have been smuggled in (and act like your opponent is a complete idiot when he asks whether God couldn't have used evolution to create animals and humans).
4) State that "revelation trumps" and lecture on how superior theology is to philosophy and philosophy is ot natural science (not realizing that this is begging the question from your opponent's point of view, since what actually is revealed is precisely what is at issue).

Or maybe, just maybe:

5) Show that what your opponent claims are scientific conclusion don't actually follow from the evidence, using proper means of inference.

What do you think?

[An aspiring Thomist]

I personally have not seen good evidence for evolution. Most in favor just assert it is an established fact and make allusions to some supposed evidence. The evidence that has been presented to me has been debunked like vestigial organs.

Quare, do you have any links that support your claim that science has very strong evidence for evolution.