How Long have Humans Lived on Earth?

o_mlly · Sunday at 1:08 PM

The Barbarian said:
From the Catechism:
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image; “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

Keep reading:
364 Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity.

The Barbarian said:
Well, let's take a look...

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

"While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

? Wrong thread on your citation. This one is titled "How Long have Humans Lived on Earth?"

The Barbarian said:
Doesn't seem so. None of this is contrary to the idea that there were two original ancestors of all humans on Earth today, my thought is that they were able to potentially live forever by God's gift of the Tree of Life in the Garden, and once that was closed to them, immortality was closed to them as well, as God says in Genesis 3.

So, you now agree with the Catholic teaching that we were created body and soul immortal? Not potentially, but actually, i.e., Adam would still be living in the Garden had he not disobeyed. Adam and Eve had the preternatural gifts (from praeter natura "beyond nature"). They are usually numbered as three: infused knowledge, immortality, and integrity of passions.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/preternatural-gifts-and-supernatural-gift-of-grace/

The Barbarian · Sunday at 1:19 PM

o_mlly said:
o. We have a body but we are not a soul.

I don't think you understand what Catholic doctrine teaches about this...

From the Catechism:
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image; “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

The term has two meanings in Sacred Scripture, and I think you've conflated them here into one meaning. The soul, as pointed out, is the "innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image" as well as the entire person. This is why God says that man became a living soul, not that he was given a living soul.

The Barbarian · Sunday at 1:20 PM

o_mlly said:
So, you now agree with the Catholic teaching

This teaching, from the Vatican?
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

"While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God
Yep. Your error is in conflating the two meanings of "soul" in Sacred Scripture.

The Barbarian · Sunday at 1:30 PM

eleos1954 said:
Although they did not fall down dead immediately, the act of eating the fruit fundamentally altered their existence from immortal to mortal on that day.

God cut them off from the Tree of Life that would have allowed them to live forever. They were never created immortal.

Akita Suggagaki · Sunday at 4:02 PM

Dale said:
The things I was talking about happened before written history began. While creationists tell me that the world is only 6,000 years old, I have seen one source that says that written history alone goes back 6,100 years.

Among the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens are those found at the Omo-Kibish Iarchaeological site in south-western Ethiopia, dating to about 233,000[2] to 196,000 years ago,[3] the Florisbad Skullfound at the Florisbad archaeological and paleontological site in South Africa, dating to about 259,000 years ago,[citation needed]and the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco, dated about 315,000 years ago.[4]

I think this possibility if a deeper history helps to explain our current complexity of relationships with nonhumans as well as our own innovations and technical development.

The Barbarian · Sunday at 4:24 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
Among the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens are those found at the Omo-Kibish Iarchaeological site in south-western Ethiopia, dating to about 233,000[2] to 196,000 years ago,[3] the Florisbad Skullfound at the Florisbad archaeological and paleontological site in South Africa, dating to about 259,000 years ago,[citation needed]and the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco, dated about 315,000 years ago.[4]

I think this possibility if a deeper history hells to explain our current complexity of relationships with nonhumans as well as our own innovations and technical development.

When I was starting out in biology, there were various Australopithecines, H. heidelbergensis, H. erectus, H. habilis, and a few odd scraps. Today, there's a huge number of species, and a complex story still being determined. I love it.

Akita Suggagaki · Sunday at 9:07 PM

The Barbarian said:
When I was starting out in biology, there were various Australopithecines, H. heidelbergensis, H. erectus, H. habilis, and a few odd scraps. Today, there's a huge number of species, and a complex story still being determined. I love it.

I do too. And they were not stupid. We think we are the “most evolved” today. Somewhere some how we began to devolve.

Firstlightdawn · Sunday at 11:17 PM

The Barbarian said:
God said that Adam would die the day he ate from the tree.

The Hebrew is a little advanced for me on this point, but we are told the Bible says: "Dieing you shall die". So he died at the age of 930. But the process of death began when he sinned. God is very exact and very precise. We know that exactly 4,000 years later from that moment the veil was torn in the temple.

Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel to bring in all the descendants of Abraham (Israel). Then we have the time of the gentiles or the church age to bring in Adams descendants outside of the covenant with Abraham. The kingdom age, I do not know who or what that is for.

o_mlly · 2026-02-16T07:21:30-0600

The Barbarian said:
The term has two meanings in Sacred Scripture, and I think you've conflated them here into one meaning. The soul, as pointed out, is the "innermost aspect of man.

An "aspect" is but one point of viewing. As I pointed out in previous posts with magisterial citations to you, the Church teaches that human beings are a composite. They are not souls but bodies and souls.

Remember, the catechism is but a summary document and on its own has no authority. The catechism's authority is in its footnotes. I'm sure that many Catholics in our sub-forum would be happy to help you improve your poor catechesis.

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T08:37:05-0600

From the Catechism:
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image; “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

The term has two meanings in Sacred Scripture, and I think you've conflated them here into one meaning. The soul, as pointed out, is the "innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image" as well as the entire person. This is why God says that man became a living soul, not that he was given a living soul.

o_mlly said:
An "aspect" is but one point of viewing.

Complain to the Church. I didn't write it.

o_mlly said:
Remember, the catechism is but a summary document and on its own has no authority.

Well, let's ask a pope...

Pope John Paul II called the Catechism “a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s magisterium” (Fidei Depositum 3). He declared it to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

How much Authority does the Catechism of the Catholic Church Carry?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a presentation of Church doctrine that has previously been taught with varying degrees of authority. To determine the de...

www.catholic.com

Not that I'm questioning your authority in matters of faith, but I would tend to put more confidence in his word on this.

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T08:46:39-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
The Hebrew is a little advanced for me on this point, but we are told the Bible says: "Dieing you shall die". So he died at the age of 930. But the process of death began when he sinned.

You think all the English versions of the Bible are wrong?

Turns out, the German, Latin, and Spanish versions are also wrong, if you're right.

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T09:35:10-0600

It's important to distinguish the difference between H. sapiens and other humans. H. sapiens has been around for over 300,000 years, but there where species of humans much earlier than that. A few million years or so. Maybe a bit less than three million years. H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are from that time. But there might have been earlier species.

o_mlly · 2026-02-16T11:48:58-0600

The Barbarian said:
Complain to the Church. I didn't write it.

But you have misinterpreted the plain meaning of the document.

The Barbarian said:
How much Authority does the Catechism of the Catholic Church Carry?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a presentation of Church doctrine that has previously been taught with varying degrees of authority.

? Your source and the popes, agrees with me:

To determine the degree of authority with which any given doctrine has been taught, one must investigate the history of that particular teaching. Look to the Catechism’s footnotes for help in this regard. There you will find references to Church councils, documents, canon law, Scripture, etc., all of varying degrees of authority.

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T12:00:42-0600

Complain to the Church. I didn't write it.

o_mlly said:
But you have misinterpreted the plain meaning of the document.

From the Catechism:
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image; “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

It says what I told you. And then you downplayed the authority of the Catechism:

o_mlly said:
Remember, the catechism is but a summary document and on its own has no authority.

So I reminded you of what a Pope has stated:
Pope John Paul II called the Catechism “a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s magisterium” (Fidei Depositum 3). He declared it to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I would also defer to the Bishops in Council over your opinion.

o_mlly · 2026-02-16T12:31:29-0600

The Barbarian said:
Complain to the Church. I didn't write it.

From the Catechism:
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image; “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

It says what I told you. And then you downplayed the authority of the Catechism:

So I reminded you of what a Pope has stated:
Pope John Paul II called the Catechism “a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s magisterium” (Fidei Depositum 3). He declared it to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

I would also defer to the Bishops in Council over your opinion.

? What you are looking for in mining through Catholic teaching and have not, nor will you, find one that teaches as you claim "humans are souls".

As to your latest effort, from St. JPII in Fidei Depositum: "In 1986 I entrusted a commission of 12 Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger." In his book Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) considers the question of the authority of the Catechism and writes:

This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the authority of the Catechism. In order to find the answer, let us first consider a bit more closely its juridical character. We could express it in this way: analogously to the new Code of Canon Law, the Catechism is de facto a collegial work; canonically, it falls under the special jurisdiction of the Pope, inasmuch as it was authorized for the whole Christian world by the Holy Father in virtue of the supreme teaching authority invested in him. . . . The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole.

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T15:42:41-0600

o_mlly said:
What you are looking for in mining through Catholic teaching

If you consider citing the Catechism and a pope ex cathedra to be "mining through Catholiic teaching", we've located the problem. The Catechism:

falls under the special jurisdiction of the Pope, inasmuch as it was authorized for the whole Christian world by the Holy Father in virtue of the supreme teaching authority invested in him

Sounds authoritative to me. I realize at least some non-Catholic Christians reject the authority of the Catechism. But I've never encountered a Catholic who thought so, except possibly until now. Do you actually deny that the teaching of the Church in the Catechism is true and authoritative?

o_mlly said:
What you are looking for in mining through Catholic teaching and have not, nor will you, find one that teaches as you claim "humans are souls".

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Most Catholics consider the Bible to be true. Are you now asserting that it is not always literally true? As intriguing as this discussion is, we should lay aside your differences with the Catechism and return to the question of "How long have humans lived on Earth?" Maybe you should start a new thread on your opinion of the Catechism.

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T17:34:46-0600

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T17:46:31-0600

Akita Suggagaki said:
I do too. And they were not stupid. We think we are the “most evolved” today. Somewhere some how we began to devolve.

They weren't stupid. Indeed, Neanderthals were in some ways more evolved than we are. Bigger skulls, more muscular. Less like archaic H. sapiens than we are. "More evolved" does not necessarily mean "better" or even "more fit." We continue to evolve. There is considerable evidence that once humans and wolves began to cooperate, each evolved toward a closer symbiosis.

The Coevolution of Wolves and Humans

The First Domestication: How Wolves and Humans Coevolved.
Yale University Press

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/68/4/305/4915943?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

It's mostly behavioral, but also some physical changes. Some of them to fit crops and domesticated food sources. Canids evolved enzymes to more efficiently digest carbohydrates, and humans evolved a tendency to have lactase genes active into adulthood. Humans evolved genes for more aggressive immune responses, some of which now seem to be involved in multiple sclerosis. When humans started associating with animals, zoonoses became a bigger hazard and so a very active immune system was favored, even if it occasionally resulted in severe disorders.

Akita Suggagaki · 2026-02-16T19:25:09-0600

The Barbarian said:
It's important to distinguish the difference between H. sapiens and other humans. H. sapiens has been around for over 300,000 years, but there where species of humans much earlier than that. A few million years or so. Maybe a bit less than three million years. H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are from that time. But there might have been earlier species.

I was wondering about.

Although the term "humans" technically equates with all members of the genusHomo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extantmember. All other members of the genus Homo, now extinct, are known as archaic humans, and the term "modern human" is used to distinguish Homo sapiens from archaic humans.

The Barbarian · 2026-02-16T19:32:39-0600

Akita Suggagaki said:
Although the term "humans" technically equates with all members of the genusHomo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extantmember. All other members of the genus Homo, now extinct, are known as archaic humans, and the term "modern human" is used to distinguish Homo sapiens from archaic humans.

Normally we call our particular humans as "anatomically modern humans." Archaic Homo sapiens, strictly speaking, would be H. heidelbergensis, (see the chart above) although some would call any extinct human population to be "archaic H. sapiens." Anatomically modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one other group were descended from archaic H. sapiens. I believe that all of these are subspecies of H. sapiens; this is still not settled, however. Our kind interbred with them. Neanderthals were more evolved from archaic H. sapiens than we are. Early Neanderthals looked more like anatomically modern humans than later ones.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

How Long have Humans Lived on Earth?

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Active Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

“Behold, I make all things new.”

How much Authority does the Catechism of the Catholic Church Carry?​

Crabby Old White Guy

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

The Coevolution of Wolves and Humans ​

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads

How much Authority does the Catechism of the Catholic Church Carry?

The Coevolution of Wolves and Humans