Where Did Humans Come From?

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps the issue here is that you are very science-minded, which holds to strict terminology.

I just showed you an example of science not strictly defining key biological ideas. Because of evolution, science can't precisely define "species" either. Some biologists suppose that there really are no species, only populations.

Scientists generally have a pretty good tolerance for ambiguity.

 

[JAL]

@The Barbarian
You too, seem to sometimes have an EITHER-OR attitude in your replies to me. I end up going round 'n round in circles with you, just as with @DialecticSkeptic.

I don't know if apes are persons or even if they have immortal souls.

EITHER no soul at all, OR an IMMORTAL one? No possibility of a temporary soul, or one temporarily endued with sentience?

And I would say you were wrong to consider intelligence to be the definition of personhood.

A person is EITHER fully intelligent OR not a person? No middle ground here?
All these terms are in degrees.

So he conflated intelligence with sentience? Odd. You know the difference, right?

What difference? By strict science definitions, right? Personally - if we allow for the whole range of degrees (anything beyond the negligible degrees) - I don't see any pressing need to distinguish these terms:
-consciousness
- sentience
- en-soul-ed
- intelligence
- agency/personhood.
- alive

It's all the same thing to me - it's just that living creatures vary in degrees. That's MY terminology. A roach senses me coming after it, and, in my opinion, feels a sense of danger and, accordingly, begins self-propelling away from me. THAT alone qualifies as sentience in my book.

So he conflated intelligence with sentience?

I don't know if apes are persons or even if they have immortal souls. They are persons in the sense of being intelligent and having feelings of love, fear, hatred and compassion. I know I would not harm one except to protect another person.

Animals self-propel by free will, just like humans do. I'm not saying the degree of freedom and cognition is the same - their systems pressure them more. Take us for example. I freely CHOOSE when to empty my bladder. Self-propellingly I can release it when I choose. Does this mean infinite freedom? No, because my system PRESSURES me to empty, it soon becomes too painful. With animals, the pressures are often higher than with humans, hence they have less freedom. But it's still the same thing.

Would you consider an ape to be a person, but not a human in the last stages of Alzheimer's dementia? Why or why not? The ape would clearly be more intelligent. The ape is clearly sentient.

See above. These terms can be used in degrees. Furthermore the term "person", in a THEOLOGICAL context, is perhaps best reserved for creatures crafted especially for fellowship with God, namely humans and angels. In THAT sense, an Alzheimer patient is ALWAYS a person, and an ape is NEVER a person. (There's one more piece of this puzzle but I don't want to cover that now).

 

[BobRyan]

EITHER no soul at all, OR an IMMORTAL one? No possibility of a temporary soul, or one temporarily endued with sentience?

Good question since the term "immortal soul" is not found in the Bible.

But as it is - animals do not have a soul that continues - after death - only man does -- Matt 10:28 says that in this life people " kill the body but not the soul" - in the case of humans. That is never said of animals. 1 Thess 4:13-18 says that in the case of humans they "Fall asleep in Jesus" rather than simply going to dust as does the body.

 

[BobRyan]

I often think this too. That the authors are just recording what they really believe. I don't assume they were correct about everything. They may have been telling the truth as they saw it.

Of course - they weren't great scientists.

well then objectively speaking we have this -

1. What does the text say ? ... regardless of what science, or atheists or others think of the value of the text - just render its meaning objectively and accurately.

2. What is the source of the text? Is it infinite mind of God - or is it the best efforts of pre-scientific man , given his best intentions - to state his own POV?

2 Tim 3:16 says "ALL scripture is inspired by God AND is to be used for doctrine"
2 Peter 1:20-21

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

Heb 3:7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,

“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,​

So then "AH HAH!" says the atheist "I have you ... you just tied God to the Bible... so if I disprove the Bible - I debunk the existence of your god".

And of course we gladly agree that the way the Bible states it - God is tied to the Bible to the point that if the Bible is proven to be false - it is the Word of God that is disproven --

I find the scriptures have really valueable spiritual truths, even in spite of the scientific inaccuracies, even in spite of the moral deficiencies of some of the characters.

That "out" for God only works if scripture ONLY claims to be the "Best efforts of pre-science man to express some positive POV with all his best intentions" or some minimalist statement similar to that.

If we had such a text and given that writers contribute to the text over 1000's of years of time - then we would expect them to say things like "We used to think this - just as Moses and David did... but we are smarter now and know they were simply mistaken"... those texts are not in the Bible either.

Good thing to -- imagine how ashamed Luther would be if all his emphasis on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine to the point of dying for his faith rather than yield a point of truth - were really nothing more than "betting one's life on the best guesses of ignorant humans living 1000's of years ago, whose guesses and suggestions are easily and rightfully to be discard by the next generation being better informed than the previous one"

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't know if apes are persons or even if they have immortal souls.

EITHER no soul at all, OR an IMMORTAL one?

Your conclusion does not follow from my statement. All living things have souls. I don't know if apes have immortal souls.

And I would say you were wrong to consider intelligence to be the definition of personhood.

A person is EITHER fully intelligent OR not a person? No middle ground here?

You seem to be arguing with yourself, now. But is a person in a coma with no detectable brain activity, still a person? Such a person would have no intelligence whatever, by any means we could use. Still a person?

I don't see any pressing need to distinguish these terms:
-consciousness
- sentience
- en-soul-ed
- intelligence
- agency/personhood.
- alive

So then tell us about that person with no brain activity. Person or not? And why or why not?

I freely CHOOSE when to empty my bladder.

Most of the time, people do. But not always. Does that mean at such times, they are not sentient?

With animals, the pressures are often higher than with humans, hence they have less freedom.

Evidence?

Furthermore the term "person", in a THEOLOGICAL context, is perhaps best reserved for creatures crafted especially for fellowship with God, namely humans and angels.

Excluding any beings that might live elsewhere in the universe? How so or not so, given your assumption?

In THAT sense, an Alzheimer patient is ALWAYS a person, and an ape is NEVER a person.

Technically, we are apes. What makes you think God didn't do it for some other group of apes as well?

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know if apes are persons or even if they have immortal souls....
Technically, we are apes. What makes you think God didn't do it for some other group of apes as well?

says it all my friends.

This is another reason why a lot of us don't go down that road.

 

[The Barbarian]

says it all my friends.

More to the point, God hasn't told us one way or the other.

Maybe we're the only apes with immortal souls. Maybe not.

 

[JAL]

So then tell us about that person with no brain activity. Person or not? And why or why not?

Sounds like you're describing a dead man. In that case, God has probably already removed his soul from his body and so, to answer your question, a dead body is not a person.

If you're talking about someone in a coma with MINIMAL brain activity, I've already answered the question: these things are in degrees AND, in a theological context, all human souls are persons.

Further, the soul is spread throughout the body in my view. So it's not just brain activity factoring here.

Most of the time, people do. But not always. Does that mean at such times, they are not sentient?

You're asking whether sentience is limited to bladder control? Is that a serious question?

Excluding any beings that might live elsewhere in the universe? How so or not so, given your assumption?

Technically, we are apes. What makes you think God didn't do it for some other group of apes as well?

You can speculate on those possibilities if you want to. As I don't see much biblical data pointing in that direction, those topics don't interest me.

 

[BobRyan]

More to the point, God hasn't told us one way or the other.

Maybe we're the only apes with immortal souls. Maybe not.

1. The term "immortal soul" is not in the Bible
2. Gen 2:7 "Adam became a living soul".
by contrast to all the animals made in Gen 2.

However the Gen 2:7 term for soul is "living being" and certainly animals are beings.

But only in the case of man do you find this statement
Eccl 12:
6 Remember your Creator before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the spring is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; 7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit/soul will return to God who gave it.

Matt 10:28
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

1. Animals are not sent to heaven or hell
2. Animals are beings but their essence/soul/spirit does not return to God

Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person (living Soul KJV).

Not "God formed man from the apes of the Earth"

 

[JAL]

Evidence?

I can't prove anything 100%, but the evidence is the high consistency/predictability of animal behavior compared to human behavior. If I adopt a cat, I'm pretty sure it will behave like most cats. If I adopt a child, he's liable to do ANYTHING.

 

[BobRyan]

Sounds like you're describing a dead man. In that case, God has probably already removed his soul from his body and so, to answer your question, a dead body is not a person.

When someone dies their organs/cells/tissue still lives which is why we can have organ transplants. Yet their spirit/soul is gone.

Gen 35:18 And it came about, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. 19 So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath

 

[The Barbarian]

I can't prove anything 100%, but the evidence is the high consistency/predictability of animal behavior compared to human behavior. If I adopt a cat, I'm pretty sure it will behave like most cats. If I adopt a child, he's liable to do ANYTHING.

If you think so, you don't know animals very well. Cats do cat things, humans do human things, but cats and humans vary a lot in their behavior.

 

[The Barbarian]

So then tell us about that person with no brain activity. Person or not? And why or why not?

Sounds like you're describing a dead man. In that case, God has probably already removed his soul from his body

"Probably?"

So is a "probably soul-less" person a person or not?
List of Brain Dead Patients Who've Recovered | KGOV.com

and so, to answer your question, a dead body is not a person.

You were unable to answer my question, so you thought up a different one and answered that.

 

[JAL]

So then tell us about that person with no brain activity. Person or not? And why or why not?



"Probably?"

So is a "probably soul-less" person a person or not?
List of Brain Dead Patients Who've Recovered | KGOV.com



You were unable to answer my question, so you thought up a different one and answered that.

I think my responses were reasonably clear and satisfactory. I'm sorry you disagree.

 

[returnn23]

The Catholic Church has specific information regarding human beings. They were created by God. And, of course, this information is based on the Bible. If there was no actual, literal Fall then human beings would not be born with Original Sin. And the Bible confirms that Adam is not a placeholder for human beings in general.

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

This is elaborated upon by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical, Humani Generis:

"37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"

 

[The Barbarian]

The Catholic Church has specific information regarding human beings. They were created by God.

Very true. The issue is that creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

And, of course, this information is based on the Bible. If there was no actual, literal Fall then human beings would not be born with Original Sin.

You've wandered a bit. Is it your argument that if Adam and Eve's ancestors evolved from other species, they couldn't disobey God? You do realize that evolution does not mean that Adam and Eve could not be two real people, right?

This is why the Church says that human descent from other species is "virtually certain", without contradiction of other doctrines.

 

[returnn23]

Your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches is incorrect.

From the encyclical Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, 1950.

"37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]"

 

[BNR32FAN]

But the reason is that God condemns it and that it results in harm to the gene pool, harm to children.

God didn’t condemn it until Leviticus which was roughly 2500 years after creation. The scriptures also say that the entire world was populated by Noah’s 3 sons.

 

[returnn23]

I hope the following provides some help regarding incest from the time of Genesis.

Why Incest in Genesis Was OK

 

[The Barbarian]

"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.

The most notable polygenist was a critic of Darwin. Louis Agassiz was certain that each race was created independently. Evolutionary theory has shown that today there are no biological human races. But some creationists remain convinced that Agassiz was right. Fewer now than formerly; it clearly contradicts Genesis.

You do realize that evolution does not mean that Adam and Eve could not be two real people, right?

Your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches is incorrect.

You seem to have misunderstood your source. It agrees with me, not you:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.