Adam's children, sibling relations, bestiality, and natural law

This is continued from another thread.

Thank you.

First, it’s dogmatically certain that God creates each soul individually and ex nihilo.

I know that it’s certain that God creates each soul supernaturally, but I wasn’t aware that it had to be ex nihilo. Do you have more information about that?

It’s not beyond the pale of orthodoxy, however, to believe that the bodies of our first parents evolved, and then two (Adam and Eve) were imbued with souls by God. The Hebrew would even seem to support this reading. In any case, the now-immortally-ensouled children of these two then mated with humans with material (think animal) souls, and begot children with immortal souls. Et cetera, et cetera. Eventually, the only humans who existed were humans with immortal souls. Hence, all humans could be* truly *descended from Adam and Eve, and incest not play into the picture.

But then instead of sibling relations that would have involved bestiality (because regardless of how modern scientists may classify the human “species”, philosophically, those with animal souls are not men) and bestiality is most assuredly against the natural law. Do you see what I mean?

The idea that humans evolved from some simian creature is really absurd! It is not science. It is just an explanation for creation without a Creator.

I am not going to go into all of the scientific principles and observations that make evolution impossible, nor the calling of variation within species “micro evolution”, nor the missing links that eventually turn out to be frauds.

The origin of life is one of the areas that is outside the realm of science. It was never observed, cannot be repeated, an all scientific evidence points in the other direction. Evolution is based on faith, just as Christianity is. The difference is, evolution is faith in a man who believed he descended from an ape, rather than faith in God.

ابو كمون

That God made man is undisputed. How He did it? Who knows but Him, but we can speculate and it may have been through the apes.

Who are we to say that is NOT how He decided to do it? That may very well be how He did it. If He wants us to figure it out that’s His prerogative isn’t it? Afterall, even if we can figure that we did come from apes … we still won’t figure out how He made the world and the apes, and we definitely do not deny that He created the whole process … even if we came from another planet!

“The origin of life is one of the areas that is outside the realm of science.” Really? Is this a consensual Islamic thinking?

Could God have made man from the apes? Of course He could have, but that would make Him a liar.

Genesis says that death came through man’s transgression. Now, if humans descended from animals that had been dying for “millions of years”, I guess that would be a lie, too. So, you can either believe what God says, or you can be politically correct and believe in Darwin, but you can’t have it both ways.

Why would anyone chose to believe that we evolved from ape, or ape-like creatures? Nobody did until about a hundred and fifty years ago. And a lot of us don’t believe it today.

And I’m not a Muslim, I’m a Catholic.

ابو كمون

abu kamoon, what language is that? Could you translate for us :slight_smile:

Great, well in that case, you ought to know that the Church has said that we are free to believe in evolution.

I believe Jimmy Akin answered a question on the Q&A show once that explained that it may have been that the apes that we came from had sensitive souls but when Adam and Eve came about they were given rational souls.

Does it say animals die because of Adam and Eve’s transgression…or does it say that humans die because of Adam and Eve’s transgression?

Show me the verse that says, prior to the fall, animals were immortal. (I’m not being a smartass…there may be one. Genesis is not the book I’m most familiar with.)

Because the Church has given people the option to believe in evolution does not somehow validate the theory. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation for something that is beyond scientific investigation. Science can no more give an explanation for the origin of life than it can for what happens to us when we die.

Scientists should know what is science, and what is not. If it is not a product of the Scientific Method, it is speculation. Scientists are free to speculate, just like the rest of us. THe speculations of scientists, however, do not qualify as science.

The Church does not speculate on the mechanism of gravity. It is enough to recognize that it exists. A theological explanation of gravity would be as ludicrous as a scientific explanation for the origin of life. Nobody was there to observe it, it can’t be duplicated today in a laboratory. It is not science.

The writing is my name in Arabic (abu kamoon)

ابو كمون

I mostly agree with you (though I believe that something looking like evolution happened).

Though, I’m still wondering…do the Scriptures say humans die because of the Fall, or humans and animals?

If we evolved from apes then what was Adam and Eve? To me thats pretty plain.

If apes and man share common parts. So do cats, cows, deer, all have lungs, hearts, eyes etc…

Maybe it speaks of a common Creator rather than evolution?

And if apes evolved why are there still apes, shouldnt exist anymore.

Like said evolution was Darwins idea and isnt supported with todays knowledge and has to be modified to fit, its more a tradition than fact.

Meanwhile what in scripture isnt true anymore and needs modification because its changing.

It doesn’t work that way…kinda like saying “If my wife and I have two children, the first having black hair and the second having blonde hair…why is there still a first child with black hair?!? After all, blonde haired, blue eyed baby #2 is the wave of the future?”

It’s not a perfect analogy (doesn’t explain where the blonde hair came from). But it illustrates why it doesn’t work to say “The apes should be gone.” Evolution says the apes are our (VERY) distant cousins. We have the new blonde hair, they have their parents black hair.

(I’m sorry. But it bugs me for people to disagree with something and not know what they are disagreeing with.)

If evolution were true (which it is not), when the first human “evolved”, what did he reproduce with? Obviously, there were no other humans. So, he must have reproduced with some sort of ape. Now, wouldn’t that be a step backwards? And of course, his progeny would be seeking out more apes to reproduce with. How could this scenario bring another species into being?

Evolution is such a ridiculous theory for anyone who has actually thought about it. We are not evolving, we are devolving. Our systems are breaking down due to genetic mutations. We are prone to conditions and diseases that our ancestors had immunity to.

If evoluiton were true, why haven’t we evolved an immunity to cancer and diabetes? Instead, we suffer from more conditions than our ancestors did, thousands of years ago.



I don’t believe in a naturalistic evolution. But, yeah, I’ll explain why your questions are invalid.

A small step is a small step. A person with blonde hair can reproduce with one with black hair.

Lots of small steps add up to a big distance.

Once the distance becomes big enough, things stop being able to reproduce with each other.

So, we have our blonde haired person, who is something of an anamoly. He gets married (to a black haired woman). They have kids. There is (if I remember basic genetics right) a 25% chance of a given child having blonde hair himself. So they have 4 kids, one of them is blonde.

He goes on to have kids. One or two of those are blonde.

They go on to have kids, one or two of those are blonde.

After a few thousand years of this, there will be a small, but growing population of blond people, and they will be distant enough in relation to you that you can safely mate with them.

None of this implies that the black haired people went away (though that could happen, if being blonde is SO great an advantage that it is pretty much impossible for black haired people to find food or mates…).

Eventually, one blonde couple has a kid with some other different trait.

Which slowly spreads.

Eventually, after a few thousand new traits…the progeny could be so different from the original black haired people that reproduction with one of the traditional black haired progeny is impossible.

That means a new species has come into existance (according to biology’s rather tautological definition of animal species: a group that can reproduce with other members of the group).

Evolution is such a ridiculous theory for anyone who has actually thought about it.

It may or may not be. I happen to disagree with its naturalistic implications.

But you look foolish when you insult people for not having though about something you don’t even understand…

We are not evolving, we are devolving. Our systems are breaking down due to genetic mutations. We are prone to conditions and diseases that our ancestors had immunity to.

If evoluiton were true, why haven’t we evolved an immunity to cancer and diabetes? Instead, we suffer from more conditions than our ancestors did, thousands of years ago.

If naturalistic evolution is true, those really old ages people lived to in the bible are wrong. The cavemen would have lived to about 30 and 40, and would have lived on a diet of meat, nuts, and fruit.

Notice…almost NO one gets cancer before they turn 40. Few people get diabetes, and those that do get diabetes tend to eat very unhealthy foods that were not available to early humans (if naturalistic evolution is right).

We didn’t evolve a solution to cancer or diabetes because these things have only actually threatened most of human life for a few hundred years, which isn’t much time on an evolutionist scale…even small traits need thousands of years to evolve…or more accurately, hundreds of generations to evolve and spread.

Almost all of our ‘conditions’ are conditions that appear late in life.

Also, germs reproduce and die quickly. Germs can go through dozens or hundreds of generations in a week. So they evolve faster than we do.

EDIT: You can see this REALLY clearly with languages. When the Amish (a anti-technology protestant sect) came to America, they spoke Dutch. Regular old normal Dutch like any other person from that part of Europe. They live isolated lives from the rest of society.

A few hundred years later (today)…put a person who speaks European Dutch and a person that speaks Amish Dutch in the same room…and they will understand maybe every other sentence, with difficulty. Both languages have changed to much.

One more.

In evolution, “Survival of the fittest” means “survival of those who have the most babies that grow up to have babies of their own”.

By the time people are old enough to be catch cancer, they’ve pretty well had all their babies. Evolution has used them already. A couple that has three kids and dies at the age of 30 is exactly as evolutionarily “fit” as a couple that has three kids and dies at 120.

What distant cousins? desended from. The chart at the zoo was clear of the progression painted neatly. Hey its what science told me in grade 7, I guess the evolution of man isnt at the zoo anymore. But the tradition of it still lives on. Whatever amendments or new discoveries have happened, its still burdened by its original theory that started it.

And I know that to be true because thats the first thing you picked out of several comments that were there. I was taught from apes and if only they could find the missing link it would all be proven.

God created them human, male and female. Not a hybrid to change up later. Adam and Eve took care of the apes, didnt come from them. :slight_smile:

et el, info on Diabetes

Strange Stories
Diabetes has been around a very long time. There was a prescription for frequent urination, its most common symptom, on an Egyptian papyrus dating back to 1500 B.C.

Much later, in 100 A.D., the Greek physician Aretaeus of Cappadocia first named the condition “diabetes,” which is Greek for “siphon,” since people with diabetes urinated so often.

In 1889, two medical researchers in Europe, J. von Mering and O. Minowski, removed the pancreas of a dog to see what would happen. The dog began to urinate a lot, and the researchers noticed there were flies swarming around the pools of urine. When they tested the urine and discovered that it contained sugar, they realized the dog had developed diabetes. Now they knew that diabetes was a disease of the pancreas.

Until this century, the only way doctors had to treat diabetes was through diet. Aretaeus of Cappadocia prescribed a diet of milk, gruel, cereal, and wine. Other doctors throughout history tried a strict meat diet, and still others tried a diet high in fat. These diets didn’t help, of course. People with Type 1 diabetes usually only lived a few months after they developed it.

I’m not going to argue that people believe in literal Genesis.
I’m not going to argue that people believe in evolution.
I’m not going to argue anything.

That’s not why I’m posting.

I’m posting, because as a Christian, I’m sick of looking stupid because of other people.

BY ALL MEANS, disagree with evolution. Doubt evolution. I doubt it.

But PLEASE don’t PUBLICLY argue against it when you don’t have any clue what is says in the first place!

I can’t put this in strong enough terms: People who argue against evolution without understanding it are HURTING the Faith!

People who argue against it intelligently (like the better Intelligent Design theorists) are helping the Faith. People who say “You are an idiot. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” They are hurting the faith. They are destroying the faith, brick by brick. If I were a paranoid sort of man, I would suspect them of being secular humanists in disguise trying to undermine Christianity.

Argue against it by all means, but make a little more effort to understand it than “I looked at a mural at the zoo one time.” before you do it.

Either read up on it and join the debate. And read stuff a college biology professor would sign off on. You wouldn’t believe a person has a firm grasp on American politics because they watched a Michael Moore documentary, so don’t pretend you have a firm grasp on what evolution says because you read a book by Kent Hovind.

Or don’t read up on it, and stay out of it, beyond merely saying “I’m a Christian and I don’t buy all this evolution stuff.”

Now, to answer your query:


No one alive today was alive millions of years ago.
None of the apes alive today was alive millions of years ago.

There is no monkey sitting in a zoo that an evolutionist will say “That’s the monkey that gave birth to the first human.”

So, according to an evolutionist, all monkeys and all humans are the grand children of a common parent (which was also a primate, less than a human, and therefore an ape.)

When two things, of roughly the same generation, share the same grand-parents, great grand parents, etc, but do not share the same parents…They are probably cousins.

I’m telling you what the theory says and has always said. None of the concepts I just explained wasn’t in “Origin of Species”.

There is new stuff in evolutionary biology, and SOME of it is stuff you could use to attack evolution. But that means finding out what the theory actually SAYS.

Here are some better arguments you can use (and people have answers for them, but these at least show that the person making them understands the basics of whats being discussed):

  1. The basic model of evolution shows species gradually changing and emerging over time. That is NOT what the fossil record shows. The fossil record shows long periods of stability, and then, out of nowhere, millions of new species, radically different from what preceded them, will in just a few years.

  2. How can you get something as complex as an eye from small incremental improvements? (And if the evolutionists insist that it can be done, demand that he tell you a feature which cannot evolve. (Its a rule of good science: anything that explains every possible outcome is not allowed…its one reason real scientists don’t write papers about God (even though most of them are religious, including, yes, biologists.))

  3. How does genetic information increase? (I may be out of date, but last I read, no one knows how a parent with 1000 genes can give birth to something with 1100…and this is critical, because different species have different numbers of genes).

Disagree with Darwinism.

Please disagree with Darwinism.

But don’t publicly argue against it unless you actually know what it says.


It doesn’t address the point though.

It only spread widely with modern diets.

And its also a disease that, when it does appear, tends to appear late in life.

After people have already had their children.

In other words, after they are, evolutionarily speaking, useless. Worse than useless…a burden.

Fine what you said. Everytime I try to get into this topic someone dives on me and says Im out of date. Im not speaking about NOW Im speaking about the line of apes as it was presented to me and I was expected to believe. Ive had people go so far to say it wasnt that way. Because its not now.

Thats why I bring up the zoo because it was thought of so much they did a mural. The whole thing rested AT THAT TIME on the missing link and oh if they could only find it then it would be proven. THATS all Im saying.

(Personally I was exicited to be in science class and FINALLY find out the truth and clearly disapointed that science had no clue, only theories, it was a blow. I remember crystal clear.)

And besides where are the monkeys was NOT the only thing I said, just the only point you took away. It was actually a throw away line in the whole post.

Ive read that Darwin was in a state of mind or however one wants to put it with God (how about he was doubting) then he went to the island and found the life forms and used that to back up his doubts. Although they were found out to be new “truths” I wonder what he could have found if he had maintained his faith. (my words not verbadium)

And heres why I said any of this, I cant trust his decisions because he was “biased” to prove a point and they have since disproved and modified and changed and rethought his deal ever since. But still take his faulty premise as fact to start from. Thats where I get its actually a “tradition” now. But if asked about fact, then claim oh science is always changing. (But God is not :wink: )

THIS is what I was trying for, Im sorry if I didnt explain it correctly. And it annoyed you obviously. I appreciate your answers, in them is some of what Im trying to find out. I guess Im attempting to look at the begginings as soggy but today are touted as fact when they werent and are even argued but never let go. Maybe its a “angle” thats not valid but Im just trying to find that out. And if its useless then thats it. Is that fair? :slight_smile:

trentonzero or et el

Well part of the point was addressing a time line for knowledge of diabetes.

I wont disagree modern diets but it existed way way back that would require more research. However, a heavy rice diet can cause it and rice is certainly not a modern food.

Pregancy can bring on temporary that can lead to pernament but not always. Men also get it. I got it around 38 which isnt late. Its only "late "because people ignore the symptoms and dont see doctors often enough. I suspect more people have it than realise.

And Type 1 is from birth like the person on the site I quoted.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit