Former Protestant, convert to Catholicism here, raised YEC and still trying to figure it all out. I really like Trent’s videos (and have been looking forward to his promised videos on Kolbe Creation Center for a while), but I have to confess, I’m a bit disappointed with this one; particularly the part about the Paluxty River prints. My parents took us to Glen Rose when I was a kid, and this “specimen” is a big deal to a lot of YECers, and, let’s be honest, if it was real, it should be a big deal. So to wrap up that part with a “scientist have decided that it’s just erosion” and move on, without any links to study’s or references, feels a bit simplistic and dismissive, especially if you were raised to be suspicious of most of the scientific community, raised as we were with tales of the canceling of scientists who questioned the evolutionary dogma, long before canceling became a culture-wide phenomena. I know debunking that particular argument was not the sole purpose of this video, but a link to a study or mention of a source would have much better than to just dismiss it and move on. Especially since something that looks so clearly like a human footprint could not possibly be attributed to simple erosion. Turns out, it wasn’t erosion, it was most likely a carved hoax. I went looking for myself, and found this excellent study and breakdown of all the supposed prints attributes that indicate strongly that it was carved. Looking closely at it with their observations have convinced me, after all, that it is, in fact, a hoax. I confess myself disappointed and kinda sad to learn that… but also relieved to have an actual answer, and one that isn’t flippant, dismissive, condescending, or disrespectful. Anyway, here’s the link for those interested: paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm Incidentally, I am one of those (usually) silent readers who is really struggling to ascertain the truth in this area, and am open to what I was raised to believe being wrong… but the absolute nastiness and pettiness that I see in the comments on this video (and elsewhere in the whole evolution/creationist debate) are a HUGE deterrent to hearing what you all have to say. (I acknowledge that both sides are guilty of this.) A large percentage of the comments under this video are derisive, nasty, scornful and mocking, and all the unnecessary comments about Taylor Marshall and the other fellow are equally off-putting. I am not a particular Taylor Marshall fan myself, but the comments about him that have nothing to do with the subject of the video, are also a huge turn-off for someone like me who is honestly trying to weigh all of this and find the truth. The presentation matters as much as the content. Just keep that in mind.
I'd just like to say it's so wonderful and refreshing to see a comment that's so open minded and, for lack of a better term, reasonable. I'd personally recommend you look into the work of Jonathan Pageau, and his brother Matthew Pageau's book "The Language of Creation" for an interesting take on the cosmology and symbolism in Genesis.
I really appreciate everything you had to say and also the way you have balanced the ease with which it APPEARS trent accepted the scientific conclusion of one scientist. Scientific conclusion are often wrong(maybe he researched it better that the video lets on, idk) I haven’t seen any nasty comments though. Unless you mean getting a chuckle out of reading beowulf as a historical record. But anyway, i think trent was kind and treated the subject quite fairly. Except like i said the potential ease with which he accepted a scientific conclusion.
What is YEC? And how did you get your link to stay in the comment? I've experienced several times providing a link to my comment causing the comment to get deleted. UA-cam seems very arbitrary regarding their policies.
It seem the video is attacking dinosaur existence in the middle ages, which is different from just dismissing YEC. You are correct regarding presentation of argument though.
I was raised as a YEC (as a Protestant) and spent years debating evolution and defending the literalistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2. What ultimately proved the biggest factor in changing my mind about my previous views was when I first encountered teaching about Genesis 1 and 2 from Catholic sources like Scott Hahn that looked at their covenant meaning and their place in salvation history. I realized, to my shock, that I had been reading and defending Genesis for years, and had never learned a single thing about what those passages actually meant to the Faith. I also realized that whether those passages were understood to be literal history or not, had basically no impact on understanding what they were meant to teach us. Essentially I realized that I had spent so much effort on trying to defend God's word being literal, and I had completely and absolutely missed what God was intending to say. From that point on I became convinced that the entire debate about literal young earth creation was a largely useless distraction. People can believe what they want in that regard. What actually matters is if you understand what the text MEANS. I think the devil is perfectly happy to have young earth creationists, so long as being young earth creationists keeps them distracted from what God is actually saying to them.
@@thomasjefferson6 or maybe Jesus just didn't think it was important enough to contradict what everyone thought and knew it would just become a big pointless distraction from his purpose and message.
As a former atheist turned Catholic, I can confirm that there are waaaaay better arguments against evolution that appealed to me than what Hall and Marshall were talking about. Look up video interviews with David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer on the subject. The first crack in the armor against evolution for me was a UA-cam video titled “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” that was put out by The Hoover Institute. After watching that I began looking up other videos by people in that video and the UA-cam algorithm showed me many other very reasonable and scientifically defendable stances AGAINST Darwinian Evolution as it is taught in schools.
As a believer I would not deny the possibility that God made a small miracle each time a new species appeared on earth. But I find it more reasonable that He created a universe where some laws allowed the appearance of new species from the existing ones. Such laws must not necessarily be identical to those produced by darwinists, but I will change them only for more complete and convincing ones.
Darwinian evolution, by itself, is considered incomplete even by many atheist evolutionary biologists. The Mendelian theory of genetics helped to fill in some of the gaps left by it, so that's another win for Catholics in my book. I also don't personally see many good reasons why God cannot work through something like evolution to achieve His goals.
Gus, exactly right. There's a lot of jumping through hoops on this topic. Yes there's a lot of holes in evolution. It doesn't follow to then craft a blended secular/religious narrative of creation. The entire secular narrative of creation is suspect.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 I don't believe God has to explicitly say everything He does just for Him to do it. That's putting an arbitrary limit on God just for the sake of the limit.
Hall recently interviewed Dr. Rômulo Carleial, a creationist who is also an evolutionary biology researcher at Kew, London, with his doctorate from Oxford. Will you be addressing the arguments presented in that video?
Right but one need not accept Neodarwinianism to accept or explain descent with modification or natural selection. This dynamic can still hold under a different metaphysical framework, imc uding a theologically compatible one. Thus we come to theistic evolution. Science is not beholden to any particular model so a modified evolutionary model. So invalidating one type of evolutionary model does not invalidate the entire dataset since alternatives exist, such as again, theistic evolution, also the currently popular extended evolutionary synthesis model, even a combination of these. It is good to have alternatives though as it keeps the exploration of truth and refining the arguments and analysis where it might otherwise stagnate. Afterall, we can not account for unknown unknowns and usually only some known unknowns, so we must continually refine and reform our understanding from falsehoods here below. But the evolution versus creation debate is a cultural artifact of the 1800s over categories that on both sides, are not really relevant anymore as our understanding from study, or magisterial guidance, has increased.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH #283 “ The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.”
Good video. I’m a Trad and I sometimes watch both these guys but I don’t know why they feel the need to discuss a topic so far removed from their areas of expertise. Trent seems correct that the Church has no opinion here and as St Augustine points out she has no need to yoke her theology to an opinion about material science. The latter come and go. Dragon time: my ancestor slew one in Scotland in the early twelfth century. It was three yards long and the color of an adder. It would open its jaws really wide and threaten peasants and livestock. It sounds like a saltwater crocodile that was really lost. I feel a bit bad for it but if there’s a dragon you’ve got to slay it. Noblesse oblige and all that.
To aaronsomerville2124: One of the wisest remarks I have seen related to this video! Thank you! I just wish that there was more caution about getting hitched to any "scientific consus". The Church got into trouble doing that before, when the scientific "consensus" was against Copernicus and was for Ptolemy.
What concerns me regarding theistic evolution is how its proponents almost always propose something adjacent to polygenism or "Adam was just the head of a tribe." I also find it incredibly find it quite frustrating to see St. Augustine propped up as if he is some precursor to theistic evolution. He believed nothing like that - in fact, he was the youngest earth creationist because he believed that the material world was created instantaneously. He could be wrong, but to use him to promote theistic evolution is disingenuous.
You should look into the Thomistic institute’s work on evolution. They argue that a historical Adam from whom everyone descended is compatible with the current scientific consensus, if I remember correctly.
@@calebadcock363It is. Scientists even observed how with a recent study of birds speciation how the new genetic variation of bird (the first gen) only mated within themselves.
Saying "you're free to believe that" is true, if we remember we have a moral responsibility to seek and share the truth, not just what we wish were true. I don't think these conversations put enough stress on this point.
@@MarekGabro I agree, but I also go beyond that. If someone holds to young earth creationism out of a misplaced sense of piety, they're not fulfilling their moral duty to seek and share the truth.
Dear@@tafazziReadChannelDescription, well, evolution is rather a peripheral point, and not even dogma. I personally would prefer that Catholics study what the CCC says about blessings, and learn more about the various kinds of dignity of human beings. And perhaps spend some time in meditation on how we need to honor the pope, and not be judgmental, even if we don't fully understand what he is doing.
@susand3668 "the truth will set you free" it says. Church fathers were intelligent people, though truly about what they know, discussed instead of blind following. They followed after understanding why it is good. God gave us intellect and we have to use it
I grew up in a hard core literal 6 day creation church as I got older I accepted something like theistic evolution, until I went to college and took biology courses. Despite the professors being all in on evolution I came away believing that evolution has a lot of explanatory power, but little else. Macro level evolution seems unbelievably unlikely, but 6 day creation seems silly. I am left with this squishy, "God did it, but I don't know what IT is." position.
Old Earth Creationism for the win! Basically that the Earth is billions of years old but macroevolution is false as God made all over long periods of time. Btw, I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, but leaning agnostic on this to be honest
@@SneakyEmu Most people can't grasp how unlikely an advantageous mutation is, and how unlikely that, in turn, makes any macro-evolutionary account that relies on the twin levers of random mutation and natural selection.
When I got to university, I found out that evolution had no explanatory power in specific cases (e.g. how the woodpecker evolved) or where new genetic information comes from. My biology profs were quite insistent that the real evidence for evolution comes from paleontology, while my geology/paleontology profs said that the main evidence for evolution comes from biology.
It's pretty easy to tell that dragons, in Europe at least, are based on snakes and lizards. Dragon comes from a word that actually means "very large snake". You gotta ignore quite a bit of evidence to claim that these are depictions of dinosaurs
As I said elsewhere, the only dinosaur I can think of at the moment, which even vaguely resembles the shape of a classic medieval dragon, would be our updated reconstructions of Spinosaurus. At least that dinosaur has a massive size, a long skinny body, a paddle-like tail, relatively short hind-limbs, large clawed forelimbs, a crocodilian-like jaw, and extra decorative features like the sail. Those features do at least come together to yield something, which resembles how the classic dragon usually has a more serpentine and lizard/crocodile-like frame with extra embellishments. So while it lacks wings, I could at least hypothesize see Spinosaurus standing in for some kind of flightless marsh/river dragon, due to its body shape and mostly aquatic lifestyle. However, all the other dinosaurs seem to barely look anything like a medieval dragon, unless one were to create a chimera of features from different dinosaurs (and possibly pterosaurs).
@@markcobuzzi826 definitely not pterosaurs, they would've been described as birds or bats more like due to their appearance. And even our modern reconstruction of spinosaurus is a stretch It makes way more sense to compare them to snakes, lizards, and other reptiles. That's actually why they're also called Wyrms, which is derived from the same word as our word Worm 🪱.
@@johnhoelzeman6683 That was my main intended point, how even comparing one of the more bizarre dinosaurs like Spinosaurus to dragons would be a stretch. And I meant to suggest that pterosaurs too look almost nothing like dragons/wyverns aside from their wings (and sometimes a long diamond-tipped tail), requiring one to amalgamate features from less related archosaurs before said pterosaur could start to even resemble one.
All month I’ve been thinking about “that one Catholic guy that doesn’t pray the luminous mysteries on Thursday, whatever happened to him” I now know and have the name to put to the face 😅
As a geoscientist I am completely baffled how young earth creationists can ignore so many different sources of evidence for an old Earth. There is always a lot of talk about fossils, but what about the different geochronological methods such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, luminescence dating, and electron spin resonance dating which all show an old Earth.
You are 100% right. To quibble around, you might add as methods of dating those involving radioisotopes and their decaying products with half-lives much longer than 5700 years. They help us date geological strata, and fossils contained in them, which are millions of years old. Allow me to say as a Christian and a scientist (certainly not the best around, but there you are) I am *overwhelmingly* baffled by young earth creationists. Creationism is a relatively recent movement born among protestants in England as reaction to the theory of evolution of Darwin, but it basically died out in its motherland. Instead, it flourished in the USA. While there are some "black sheep" in any family, like those of the Kobe center, you will not find educated Catholics in Europe who vocally support Creationism. We have learnt the lesson that an intelligent person such as St. Augustine taught us in the V century, i.e. 1500 years ago.
@@snokehusk223, the calibration curves from three ring data show when the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio change, so this is not a problem. And this still leaves other methods such as luminescence dating which work on different principals than radiocarbon dating, not to mention dendrochronology itself.
I am a protestant turned Catholic. ICR and AIG both played massive roles in my faith years ago. They helped take the spiritual mental ascent of belief in Jesus while living a heathen lifestyle and challenged me with really real world implications of the faith. Having to reconcile and root faith in reality caused me to become very serious about the every other aspect of the faith. God became a reality, Christ a real person and not a mythical example pious living, the scriptures became reliable, the church and other doctrines were no longer up for grabs and at the mercy of subjective wants and inclinations. I praise God for young earth creationism and to the day, after many interactions with nay sayers, have never heard anyone give convincing proof to the contrary... and if I'm open minded and submitted to Christ enough to go from Catholic hating fundamentalism to being Catholic and submitting to Christ's teaching even at the expense of comfort, close relationships, and ego... then that's really saying something. By the way, I absolutely love Catholic answers and se it as an invaluable resource. However, this is one topic I think, at least Trent, a man who has helped me tremendously to see the truth, has got wrong.
If you hold to a Young Earth on grounds of piety, you're wrong. It's not a belief that nakes you a better Christian, it's just not part of divine Revelation. If you hold to it based on science, you're still wrong but it's far easier to point you to the facts.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription weird, I never indicated I held to it to be pious. Or that it's divinely revealed. I think you responded to the wrong comment.
@@menoftheclothKTOG great, if your concerns are just in the scientific sphere that means we share our interpretation of the magisterium on this issue. I'm Happy to talk about science if you want
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Though it's not dogmatically defined by the church I don't pit science against the creator of the creation. However, your right that my concerns are the lack scientific evidence for macro evolution. Whatever the truth of God's handiwork is, I have never heard a convincing argument that can't be easily dispelled by either evidence, logic or both.
The “AI generated” on the impeccably crafted images of dinosaurs and humans living together was very helpful, I wouldn’t have known they were edited otherwise.
@counsel of Trent - how about Adam and Eve. Do you believe they are real people? a lot of modernist Catholics think they are not. But that creates a lot of problems like Jesus is mentioned as the second Adam. These are things which I feel makes it difficult to reconcile the creation account in Genesis and macro evolution (all species including humans evolved from a single cell).
Eh, you can make a strong scientific case for the young earth. And the Bible *seems* to suggest the young earth. I won’t give up on what I think the Bible teaches because some atheist scientists are pushing evolution. Atheists will always find a reason to reject the gospel, it doesn’t matter what we tell them about evolution. If not evolution, it’s Gods morality. Or it’s giving up their own lifestyle. Or it’s materialism. There’s always a reason to reject Christ, so no need to give up the fight against evolution
@@timothyvenable3336That's a problem. Why is there a "fight" against evolution? This is science we're discussing. We hurt our cause by attacking evolution, and even if we prove it's false, it won't help us in converting people so what's the point? lol Also, it's not only atheist scientists, but also the vast majority of christian and catholic scientists you're going against here.
If evolution is not true, obviously it should not be believed. It is attacked because many Christians don't believe it is true. Evolution is the cornerstone of the secular worldview. It is their creation myth. It also happens to be scientifically weak despite the number of people who believe it.
@@helovaz97 I wouldn’t say the “vast majority” of Christian scientists… But I agree salvation and evangelism has nothing to do with evolution. But we still need to have integrity with the word of God. There is a scientific case for a young earth (against evolution) but evolution is so mainstream and so popular that anything against it is brushed off as pseudoscience… dispute the fact evolution is 20% science and 80% theory based guesswork
@@elcidcampeador9629 ah, another who has a stumbling block with the papacy and the magisterium. But yes, tell me as a lay magistrate why it’s a stumbling block for Pope Francis?
Not gonna lie, I love Dr. Tay! I was a biology major back in the day though so there’s no way I could ever be sold by YEC. In fact, when I was an edgy college student who would argue with people about this nonsense, this is an argument I came across from none other than Kent Hovind, crazy evangelical tax evader. He’s insane and runs a YEC theme park in Florida called “dinosaur adventure land.” Look him up, it’ll keep you busy for an afternoon 😂
It's in Alabama now, not Florida. It's kind of tacky to identify him as a "evangelical tax evader". It's really just ad hominem garbage by attacking someone's character just because you disagree with him. Attack his arguments not his character. I bet you can't, that's why you resort to name calling
If creationists are accepting dragons based on drawings, they will also have to accept centaurs. Plenty of drawings of those around. And, after all, ;why would someone draw a creature that didn't exist?
I think the idea is that minotaurs and phoenixes (phoenixi?) clearly have origins in certain cultures. But just about every culture on the planet tells stories of giant terrifying lizard monsters.
@@SLERKED Lots of people talked about centaurs. Lots of people talked about unicorns. The history of humans is filled with stories of fantastical animals. There are still people who believe the L:och Ness monster exists. As I said, if you're relying on pictures drawn by humans as evidence, you're going to have to accept a lot more than dragons.
Jimmy was just theorizing and surmising to a hypothetical question asked......are you suggesting there's a problem that needs to be deconstructed with what he had to say? Because he wasn't scoffing at or criticizing anyone else and he wasn't suggesting the Church had any specific teaching on it. It was really clear it was his own personal ideas of possibilities. That's not in the same category as what Trent addressed here
@@Deuterocomical That said it does not appear as though Hall and Marshall are imposing it in such a way. At least based off of the clips shown in the video here.
Well done. Science and Religion ought to complement each other with their own expertise. This one video was well balanced, and by also calling out the incoherent commenters makes it worth to promulgate it impartially. Keep up the good work backed up with the Church's authoritative facts, and avoid any personal ambiguous opinion.
@@bobinindiana I did write well done and well balanced, didn't I? I had to add to "avoid any personal ambiguous opinions", 'cuz sometimes he has had some minor "slurs" that didn't entice its promulgation.
Calvin Smith with AiG Canada has listed several drawings worldwide of dinosaurs 🦕 so maybe the subject is debatable. The vestibule of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, features a huge long Chinese-style dragon suspended from the ceiling. The Museum also has a huge complete dinosaur skeleton.
@@bobinindiana The whole point is not if dinosaurs existed, but if humans lived together with them Perhaps you should go watch Kent Hovind's videos too, he also did a good job at showing skeletons of giant people! 😂
@@therealong Why do you make fun of Kent Hovind, a man broken by prison? Darwinist teach dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and man evolved from molecules a couple of million years ago. Genesis teaches that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour days and that Adam named the dinosaurs 🦕
There's also the potential to consider that dragons were influenced by fossils. The cyclops was likely the result of mammoth bones, which had a single large opening due to the snout. Dragon could be similar. They found the bones and then tried to explain them within the context of their myths.
@@elcidcampeador9629 your assumption seems to assume that these things you mentioned are “bad” or that the universe “should’nt” be that way. But since you did not bring the universe into being. How could you possibly be in a position to know that?
I myself am a YEC and I can definitely say there are some pretty weak and dumb arguments thrown around. This one should have been left as a theory for Marshal to ponder on his own time.
@@spiderdxn2263 Perhaps from a scientific or incomplete viewpoint, but God creating something from nothing in contrast to the laws of nature shows us that science is not always the answer. Moreover, my reasoning for a young earth stems from a philosophical argument for why there was not a macro-evolutionary process of man or beast. No evolution=no need for billions of years to fit a narrative.
I remember more than a year ago watching a Taylor Marshall bible study video and being blown away by him casually discussing dinosaurs co-existimg with humans. It's embarassing for someone with an academic knowledge of scripture not knowing basic history and makes religion look worse to unbelievers.
Clear and compelling. As a Catholic scientist, I cringe when uninformed, but well-meaning folks use anti-scientific arguments to support the faith. The truth doesn’t need such assistance. Excellent quality video Trent!
_"but __10:27__ scientists have now shown that the __10:28__ alleged human Footprints at the plexy __10:30__ tracks only look human because of __10:33__ erosion"_ Have they _shown_ it, as in replicating a foot print from some known fossil species, and speeding up erosion to get at least 10 % results replicating the Paluxy footprints? Or have they _hypothesised_ that this is what happened, and you overdo their epistemic weight?
These vain and effete self-proclaimed "trad" influencers are so tiresome and, frankly, often dim on this topic. Which is really too bad, because I agree with them on most other topics.
I like Marshall and Hall in that they take the faith very seriously and are uncompromising with the secular culture. With that said, I cannot get on board with YEC. Unless Satan has somehow been intentionally tricking us and playing greatly with our minds, there just seems no good basis at all for it. The evidence seems to be too overwhelming. I actually think the Bible can be enhanced in some ways when you do not take everything written in it literally. There can be more power and meaning in a metaphorical sense than a literal sense. This YEC I also think has undoubtedly contributed to many smarter people leaving the Church perhaps. Though I do find YEC to be a thing more in certain Protestant circles.
If you leave because other people hold to a younger earth then you weren’t there for Jesus. This is a bad argument and shouldn’t be used. Just make it clear than neither OEC or YEC is a part of the gospel and these problems go away.
@@jordandthornburg I think that argument probably applies today. I think in the past (and again, more in Protestant circles) you have kids who grew up in families being taught that YEC is the only truth. That almost the entire Bible is to be taken literally. They could not believe in that and so they gave up. Maybe they learned later that there were other ways of understanding the faith, but probably too late for many of them at that point. Though even today you still have many Protestants in the south that hold to this YEC view and teach it as absolute truth. Many kids are still growing up in that. And in today's high information era and increased access to higher education, I think you are going to continue to see a decline in faith.
Crazy people say crazy things, whether they believe in God or no. As a dinosaur I hate all changes but feel snug and happy in Lough Ness. If you could reduce the number of tourists that would be nice. I did promise Columba that I would never harm a human again, but I didn’t realize how harassed I would be.
4:44 Especially as no Stegosaurus fossils have been found in Cambodia ... How many fossils of animals having lived 1000 years ago do you find in Cambodia at all? A Stegosaurus or a dog or a monkey having died in Cambodia 1000 years ago would have quickly disintegrated. The existence of lots of fossils is actually one argument for the unique conditions of the Flood. Conditions that did not persist in Cambodia 1000 years ago.
there are many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago, even people that pretend to do science related to the flood admit that there are more recent fossils and that the record does not stop at whenever they date the flood.
I do think that most YECs believe that dinosaurs are very very rare in history, because most or all were killed in the flood. The real thing that needs to be proved is that dinosaurs existed pre-noah and dragons are based on legends passed down of their existence. If you're gonna tackle this issue you really should look into the Loch Ness monster or Mokele-mbembe. I am unsure on my stance on YEC. I just find this stuff interesting and I find a lot of arrogance on both sides.
Probably many dinosaurs 🦕 died in the Ice Age but those not in the area of the Ice Age would have lived on to die out of other causes. Some must have died recently because the flesh on their bones is sometimes elastic.
@@bobinindiana That's a good point. That's some of the most convincing evidence. There is a protein found in their bones that should have rotted away, but is still there. I think someone made a response to that, but I did not find it particularly convincing.
@@tylerbrock6047 Thank you for the kind words! I’m elderly so the correct details on this are beyond my knowledge so please post more if you have time.
I found the sound effects during this episode distracting. Mostly because I, like I'm sure plenty of people, listen to Trent's UA-cam videos as if they were his podcast episodes - because UA-cam is our main podcast source. So it's just like I'm hearing random clicks during narration. The sound effects would make more sense if trance videos were more like short films than lectures.
We have to consider the sources for proof of evolution and for creation. Picking and choosing from the scriptures is not as appealing to me as it was before. If Jesus hadn't mentioned the flood, I could think of it as allegorical or mythological. Matthew 24:37-39
There is not a rule such as "if Jesus refers to something which was common knowledge at His time, then that thing is literal". Jesus also refers to Jonah, whose book is labeled as a literary work even by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
@@Zimisce85 that's my rule. I think a flood makes more sense than a comet and dinosaurs turning into birds over 66.6 million years too. And I don't think Jesus would mention Jonah or the Flood in such a way if they did not happen. It would be deceptive. There were plenty of parts of the old testament he could have referenced, but he chose those.
About Beowulf, the current dominant thinking about this in Nordic academia is laid out by archaeologist Bo Gräslund. Beowulf is a historical poem, an ancestor tale, in which a family recount a glorious event for one of their family ancestors. In this case, the poem was probably constructed some time after the disaster of the 500s. Grendel, whose name is derived from ,,meagre"(so you could say, Grendel is the one who makes you meager/thin, a kenning and personification of starvation, misunderstood by later Christian scribes). In essence, Beowulf aids the Danes ending the famine caused by 11 years of poor growth, by enacting the same policy his host family, the Wulfingas, already have done at least once before, expelling a significant portion of the population to bring populations levels down to what the arable land can support. Gräslund has published a book about this, I believe the English title is ,,The Nordic Beowulf". I also recommend reading the Gutasaga and Geatica, if you want to put it into its proper historical context. I think it's an incredibly cool thing that Beowulf is preserved, that we have this tale, and that brilliant minds have been able to place it both in time, and in the places that are not obvious from the get-go. I am tired beyond belief in nerds who want to twist it, the Röksten, and similar Nordic, late ancient/early medieval common Germanic heritage into weird and obviously untrue takes for the sake of an already made conclusion.
I am partial to many young earth creationist arguments. But more or less I just find many of their explanations for everything as simply intellectually entertaining as opposed to serious discussion. However, I do find the idea that humanity has only been around for 6 thousand years as very much true. I also don’t believe in evolution from a theological standpoint, but also from a scientific standpoint. It’s not really a serious theory. It’s just dogma. Something scientists go along with for the time being to try and explain the world despite it having more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Evolution breaks the laws of nature. Non organic matter creating organic matter and simple life somehow becoming organisms made up of billions of cells. And all their answer is, is that somehow, with enough time. Anything is possible. Bunch of BS. Not to mention that scientists have been saying that having billions of years doesn’t help their argument. It’s based off the idea that if you put a bunch of chimps in a room with a typewriter, eventually they’ll make Shakespeare. Not happening. Natural selection doesn’t create wholly new organisms, all it does is create variations of the same organism. And it never uses genes that weren’t there. The only explanation that scientists have come up with is mutation. Outside of science fiction, mutations in virtually every conceivable way never create anything beneficial for an organism. Quite the opposite. I hear that some of the scientific community is abandoning natural selection evolution because it simply doesn’t make sense anymore and are going toward the idea that evolution can proactively learn in a trait based manner. This was a evolutionary theory proposed before Darwin by some guy I can’t remember. It was only taken somewhat seriously because it was basing its claims on too many unknowns. Overall, theistic evolution is just a way people have tried to shoehorn in science dogma into church to make it sound more amiable to atheists and scientist who will make fun of the faith regardless. I could go on, but I just don’t like the idea of Christian’s catering to the spirit of the age
I have a copy of Beowulf's recitation in Old English, it's lovely btw, and it may have been a while since I've read the text, but I'm pretty sure if I referred to the text again, which can be accessed for free on the Internet Sacred Text Archive, he was explicitly a descendent of Adam twisted by ancestral and personal sin (inherited by Cain, and therefore descendent of Adam). What's really funny about that Beowulf bit is that there is an actual dragon in the third act, and they choose Grendel of all things to be a therapod? Wild. Granted, the dragon's description is clearly fantastical and matches no known animal. Not that it apparently stopped people from seeing a therapod in Grendel, apparently. God I would have loved to have shown Tolkien that interview.
It seems like there's good evidence for something of a middle ground. There's decent evidence for micro evolution, which means that macro evolution is technically possible. However, there's little actual evidence for it, and some good evidence against. There was a study done on the DNA of hundreds of species stored in a DNA bank in.. I think Norway. They found that most of the species alive today showed a similar number of mutations. (not exactly mutations, but I forget what they're called.) the problem with this is that, if current evolutionary theory is true, animals with a shorter breeding cycle like ants or flies should show significantly more mutations due to their shorter life cycle and more rapid breeding (meaning more chances for mutation.) they don't, which indicates that the current understanding of evolution is either significantly incomplete, or just wrong. Another major thing against the current theory is what happened after mass extinction. If the current theory was true, then after a mass extinction you would expect to see the slow redevelopment of diverse and specialized life. That's not what we see though. The fossil record indicates a near instant, spontaneous explosion of complex life after each mass extinction. The current theory can't explain that. I'm not saying evolution is false, but if it's true, our understanding of it is woefully incomplete.
This comment is the epitome of "defend medieval dinosaurs to own the modernists." Modern science may be wrong about some things but it's not wrong about *everything*, and admitting that does mean you are "bending the knee to modern science". IF that were the case then the next time you get sick, instead of going to a hospital you should have someone drain you of your blood, since that's that they did as early as a couple hundred years ago (the idea being to get the bad blood causing the sickness out of you). "Modern science isn't right about everything, therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived with humans" is an embarrassment argument.
Tbh I’m not sure if I would classify those two together, since biology clearly teaches two clear genders (intersex are not a new gender, but a special condition where the person isn’t fully XX or XY. And even that is not applicable to the trans movement nowadays).
@@samueljennings4809 yeah, if we are to use technical language, the human species has two sexes. The concept of "intersex" is "any person who has a disease or condition that gravely impacts the sex-dependant structures and characteristics of the body", it's defined in reference to the binary that always applies in humans.
European and Chinese cultures both have numerous references to "dragons". Cultures often preserve memories. This may be a real memory of real creatures from the past rather than a mere invention or fiction whose memory was preserved.
Tying scientific theories to theological truths damages the theological position nine times out of ten because scientific theories are usually physically provable while theological ones are usually only logically provable. So what would someone on the fence believe if they appear to contradict?
I am and always will be a young earth creationist. However, I can admit that having Taylor Marshall agree with me is definitely a potential mark against my side.
While I am a Catholic Christian who disagrees with Young Earth Creationism, having Taylor Marshall agree with you should not be an automatic mark against your beliefs/conclusions. That is, any more than how some of “those bad guys from WWII” believing tobacco is unhealthy should be a mark against any group in general, who thinks smoking is bad for one’s health and should be avoided. I remember going over some lists of logical fallacies, with two of them being the “Ad Hominem Fallacy” and the “Fallacy Fallacy”. The former involves someone trying to refute a certain conclusion, by erroneously going after the person himself delivering the arguments, rather than refuting the actual arguments. The latter involves someone erroneously believing that a certain conclusion must be wrong, solely because some individuals happened to do a poor/fallacious job of arguing for said conclusion.
It's unfortunate that videos such as this are necessary to refute the troubled brains of two lost souls, but such is life. Thank you, Trent, for correctly putting Church teaching, and things that are not Church teaching, into their proper perspective. For what it's worth, there is a theological perspective that says Einstein's Theory of Relativity shows how 6 days in Geneses 1 can correlate to billions of years here on Earth, since according to Einstein, time is not a constant across all points in the universe. It's the same reason why time would pass differently for an astronaut travelling to Jupiter and back than it does for people on Earth. Food for thought. The Church is very clear on these issues. The only dogmatic teaching is that we humans are descended from an original set of parents. The Church is silent beyond that.
Does anyone know the reference Trent made to Augustine? I have the book, "On the Literal Intrepretation of Genesis", but I can't find the section that Trent either read or paragraphed.
They were homo sapiens but most likely not descendants of Adam and Eve. Even with this model, it wouldn't even take 2000 years for all humans to be descendants of Adam
Ditto to the comment who mentioned the use of sound-effects in the editing. Definitely high-production editing, but the click sound effects are very distracting for following the audio.
Bodie Hodge of AiG says this about Bell: Bishop Bell, who died in 1496, is buried in the foundation of the famous Carlisle Cathedral. The ornate brass engravings around the grave show several animals, some of which appear to be dinosaurs, like a long-neck sauropod and a horned ceratopsian. As for Beowulf, it probably is historical fiction in the minds of YECs. YEC thinking survived Darwin among Protestant clergyman until the late 19th century. Fundamentalists have never accepted Darwin. YEC started up again with Morse and Whitcomb.
Interestingly enough St. Augustine also attempted to use evidence from the fossil record after he found a giant molar which he believed to belong to one of the antediluvian Giants in book ix of Dei Civitas.
Thank you for being a strong catholic who doesnt use silly cope arguments. Once we start talking about Moses riding around on a dinosaur it strikes me as looking for a post hoc rationalization of things.
@TheCounselofTrent (Sorry if this is kinda random and unrelated to this video.) Just watched your Marian discussion with Allie Beth Stuckey over on her channel, and at one point you mentioned Nightcrawler from the 90s X-Men cartoon and the fact that he was portrayed as a Catholic. I wanted to give you a heads up that, as you probably would've guessed, they unfortunately did not stick to that portrayal with the new "X-Men '97" series. He's still portrayed as a "man of faith" in a very generic sense, but not overtly Catholic as he was. Kurt has always been one of my favorite characters in comics for that reason, so it's pretty disappointing, but definitely not surprising in any sense.
@gabrielethier2046 to use arguments from science to draw someone to God is quite purposeless. This is why neither form are dogma, but one actually gives glory to God more directly, whilst the other has led people away from God.
@@Thedisciplemike I don't believe in evolution because it's theologically fitting, I do because the scientific evidence points towards it, and I also believe in Jesus because there is good evidence for him.
Honestly I think that supporting macro evolution is far more detrimental to the faith. It was intentionally designed to spread atheism and it does. Its also wildly unsupported by science. Macro evolution is a religion and is fundamentally anti Catholic. That is a much bigger issue.
Do you believe God created nature? Because if you do, things determined to be accurate about nature can't be at odds with revealed truth, since they have the same author. Evolution accurately explains the diversity of life, and whether one believes it's all random, or environment guided, or divinely guided, it's not really deniable at this point that it happens. If your faith is threatened by scientific truth, I don't think you really care about truth, only about tradition.
“Evolution accurately explains the diversity of life” - Really? What explanation does it offer? “Complex life evolved from simpler life - but we don’t know how.” I think that’s more accurately characterised as a non-explanation.
@@johndeighan2495 "Complex life evolved from simpler life, but we don't know how." I didn't say that. Please don't strawman my argument. "What explanation does it offer?" The process of how life changes and diversifies over time in accord with sexual and environmental pressures. It's not that hard to understand.
@@ThePlayfarer I wasn't saying you said that. The quote marks perhaps gave that impression... but no, I wasn't paraphrasing you. I was summing up the theory of macro evolution. Sure. It's an explanation of sorts. But what counts as an explanation, really? I mean, you can talk about the "process by which life diversifies over time in accord with sexual and environmental pressures" - but that's a bit like talking about the "process by which life comes into being over nine months as a result of sexual intercourse and the conditions of the uterus". If you can't speak to the mechanism, if you can't describe the process step by step, how we get from A to B to Z... have you really explained anything, except at the highest possible level of abstraction?
@@ThePlayfarerEvolution implies that God who is perfect as a cause, had imperfections in His creation that needed constant improvement/evolving. Which is obviously false and heretical. He is a perfect cause and doesn’t bake the cake half way. When He created “He saw that it was good” meaning it was perfect. Besides the creation was a supernatural act, not a natural one which needed multiple and complex processes.
Technically, dinosaurs and humans did coexist and still do… I always see some brightly feathered dinosaurs flying around my backyard, chirping their songs, and eating seeds from feeders we fill. And a certain white feathered flying dinosaur is even used to symbolize the Holy Spirit of the Trinity.
The Director of Religious Education at my parish invited Hugh Owen from the Kolbe Center to give a talk at my parish as part of the youth ministry program (but it was open to everyone). It was the most scientifically illiterate and straight up embarrassing thing I'd ever witnessed. I actually talked with my priest about it and told him how harmful it was to expose the parish's children to this type of nonsense. Because once they grow up and realize that their parish peddled this type of garbage to them, they're going to bundle it with the rest of the faith and dismiss it altogether. I couldn't believe my otherwise excellent parish would host something like this. I absolutely blame Taylor Marshall and his ilk for mainstreaming this kind of stuff.
The fact that you can only try to shame people and gaslight them into believing your position without a single actual argument shows you are not nearly as wise as you claim to be. Have a modicum of shame and actually contribute to the dialogue. Try to not be a modern American who can only try to get the people in power to silence and destroy their opposition. try being loving and actually having a dialogue with people.
@@VACatholic He was there to witness the bad arguments, he's entitled to share his opinions. Evolution is true, just because it's not an article of Faith it doesn't mean we should stop holding people accountable for pushing the lie of young earth creationism. Truth is important, and this is a matter of science, not Faith, therefore it's correct to not have these "dialogues" happen before children who are there to recieve religious education, not witness a fringe opinion about science.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription You can believe whatever you want. He can say whatever he wants. I can point out that nothing he said is scientific, and everything he said is just about shame and gaslighting. You asserting your scientific position is more dogmatic and True than the Church's teaching is just sad. But you are truly a modern man. Congratulations on that.
@@VACatholic You want him to write a paper about a talking no one has access to? How you know he didn't actually gave his reasons to the parish why he thought it was bad? Either you believe him or not and go on with your life.
@@ghostapostle7225 He gave his argument against it, and it had nothing to do with science, but only because people might stop being Catholic when they heard other people give their explanation of the science. You seem very mad that I am criticizing him directly for his bad arguments and despicable conduct in interacting with another Catholic by backbiting through back channels rather than being a man and having a direct conversation during the talk. Or even just having a conversation afterwards, instead trying to use social pressure and gaslighting to get people to dismiss the other person without an actual argument. That's fine. You can go on your way too. Your comment is exceedingly ironic. Thanks for the laugh!
Trent is kinda picking at the low hanging fruit here... granted that the human dinosaur coexistence concept from ancient literature and art isnt a strong argument in itself, that doesnt mean that those who speak about it dont have any other foundation for opposing evolution or an old universe. Throwing out the creationist position based only on this tenet is a little lazy... The Kolbe Center website has plenty of great arguments for why Catholics should reject evolution and the old universe on the grounds of faith and science. In terms of science alone, you can find innumerable Catholic experts and PHDs critiquing evolution and the old earth arguments as well. Radio Immaculata put out a good series of vids on this recently.
Trent look at postings by Stephen Myer. He claims that several scientists in have finally concluded Darwin's evolutionary theory is not valid in the macro but has some validity in in the micro changes we see. Therefore, Evolution does not explain how life began or the charts that show humans evolving from apes etc. DNA poses a problem for evolution. Look at John Lennox as well. They both have good insights into this subject.
i have an honest question, if evolution is real and we evolved from apes, at what point did death and suffering enter the world? through the fall of and sin of adam? was adam then the first human, do humans before adam sin? i ask this not to stir trouble but i want to hear from a real roman catholic please
I find Marshall to be somewhat of a poseur both intellectually and politically. His commentaries often betray the intelligent, informed persona he attempts to present. Politically, he’s not a conservative, not in the American context anyway. He’s a populist.
The idea of a young earth was the default position of the Christian church from inception until the mid-1800s, when the claims of uniformatarianism took hold in geology, arguing that the world was older than 6,000 years. The majority of church fathers and the fathers of modern science believed that the Biblical history was correct. Those that did not accept a 6 day creation thought it was an instant. Few Christians were arguing for millions or billions of years. Those vast ages are the new ideas.
@@spiderdxn2263 Yes, science has advanced. And those who understand science realize that evolution is not really science by a claim about history. I don't believe that history is true. I believe Biblical history is true. Let's talk about it.
So was the belief there is a litteral bowl of water in the sky (Genesis 1:7). There is no bowl of water in the sky. It's not possible to interpret genesis literally today. You basically need to deny reality to do so.
@@plotinus393 Yes you can interpret Genesis historically and literally but first you need to get it clear what Genesis actually teaches. I have never heard of a "literal bowl of water in the sky". That is a weird interpretation.
This means that, if we are to accept these new ideas, the Church believed and taught some very wrong ideas about what a whole lot of Scripture really means, and retained these erroneous ideas for more than 1800 years. Not only that, but these erroneous ideas were also held by Christ and the Apostles. The idea that "from the beginning of creation" (not billions of years later) God made man "male and female" (Mark 10:6) comes from Christ Himself. However, there are plenty of people around today who claim to know more about all this than Christ Himself, or his apostles.
I'm a protestant who was raised as a young earth creationist. I don't take a hard stance on the topic anymore but I do lean toward old earth creationism. With that said, even when I was a big young earth creationist I was taken back by their lack of scientific vigor. I'm not trying to bash anyone who is a YEC or any of the scientists who write in their publications (they are certainly smarter than me), but it just seems like they are constantly taking some big leaps of faith or using the flood as a sort of God of the gaps argument. The other thing that always bothered me about most of the young earth crowd was how dogmatic they were about a literal 6 day creation event 10,000ish years ago. Ken Hamm is a good example of someone who borders on saying believing in a young earth is necessary for salvation. I think these people run the risk of adding to salvation, which is something Paul warned the Galations (I think) about sternly.
Sorry Mr Horn, I'm not convinced. Trent, you tend to care what the modern science world and athiest think about you. That's why you Jimmy akin look to science and try to fit your faith into it while people like Marshall and Hall look to their faith first and don't care what anyone thinks about them. I almost lost my faith years ago listening to Trent, Jimmy and bishop barron. The entire church leaned towards what Kolbe Center, hall and marshall believed before the 20th century. I know modernist will say "well they didnt have modern science back then". That itself is such a arrogant comment because what you're saying is modern scientist and athiests know better than the saints and the church fathers.
@@irishandscottish1829 but athiest scientists are? Funny how Trent and Jimmy can take the word of these anti God scientist as dogma but question young earth creationists. Shameful.
One problem here, Marshal and Hall are Sspx sympathizers, coincidentally also reactionary fundamentalists. Both of them claim that the ordinary rite mass is by design intended to mislead. This makes them schismatic. Furthermore they adopt the Protestant reactionary position on evolution/young earth creation etc. Catholics must reject their errors and join in exonerating them to convert to the truth.
The key difference is that the church does not opine on matters related to observation. The church safeguards *Revelation* and the deductions thereof. It was already taught and understood by Augustine in the 4th century that the two creation accounts in Genesis can’t be interpreted as side-by-side historical accounts because they contradict each other. That squeezes out any interpretation that insists they must be literal in the modern sense. Truth can’t contradict truth, as Aquinas says, so if science presents compelling evidence for the truth of some claim, then that should legitimately cast doubt on an already strained interpretation of scripture (because ALL truth, even scientific truth, comes from God, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life).
I don’t understand why people think that fossil discoveries only happened in the modern era. Many of the folklore around giants/dragons/dwarves/fantastical creatures came from fossil discoveries that happened before our modern era and became stories people told.
Ok, so first off, I’m pretty sure that they had the Septuagint, which would make it roughly 8000 years ago. Also, I’m not sure that, even if this was the correct biblical interpretation, that this means that dinosaurs would be running around and be included in the historical record. Those two points are different arguments entirely.
it's not the consensus of the fathers or of the doctors that the age of the Earth is a matter of divine revelation, or of church teaching. Stop repeating this lie, it just is not true.
Stop repeating the lie that any father or any doctor would have accepted the fact that the Earth is billions of years old, or that man evolved from a sub human primate. Any debate had over the age of the Earth of of creation would have been in the context of thousands, not billions, of years. Ill repeat again at the fourth Lateran council said that God created all “at once,” simul, from the beginning. Billions of years is “at once?”
Stop repeating the lie that the fathers or the doctors of the Church would have accepted that the Earth was billions of years old, or that man evolved from a sub human primate. The Greeks had already hypothesized this and it was roundly rejected. Any debate over the age of the Earth would have occurred in the context of thousands, not billions, of years. The Fourth Lateran Council spoke plainly when it said that God created everything at the beginning of time simul, “at once.”
Trent, I’m for most part with you. But I believe that if you understood young earth creationist you would actually understand why it’s a good way to evangelize. Better than evolution.
“If you don’t think T-Rex had a Scottish accent, you ain’t black.”- Joe Biden
"I remember two male dinosaurs kissing when I was leaving the theater. My dad said to me that those dinos are in love Jack"
“I spent a night in jail next to a stegosaurus for protesting against discrimination of Dino carnivores. That’s a true story Jack! Not made up.”
I’m ded
😂😅- C'mon man!!
This exchange made me laugh way more than it should have lol
Stegosauruses in Cambodia is the name of my new band.
Stegos in Cambodia, flows better
S.I.C
Wasn't it a song by the Dead Nixons?
Catholic metal band!
I’d go on Holiday to see you play
Former Protestant, convert to Catholicism here, raised YEC and still trying to figure it all out. I really like Trent’s videos (and have been looking forward to his promised videos on Kolbe Creation Center for a while), but I have to confess, I’m a bit disappointed with this one; particularly the part about the Paluxty River prints. My parents took us to Glen Rose when I was a kid, and this “specimen” is a big deal to a lot of YECers, and, let’s be honest, if it was real, it should be a big deal. So to wrap up that part with a “scientist have decided that it’s just erosion” and move on, without any links to study’s or references, feels a bit simplistic and dismissive, especially if you were raised to be suspicious of most of the scientific community, raised as we were with tales of the canceling of scientists who questioned the evolutionary dogma, long before canceling became a culture-wide phenomena. I know debunking that particular argument was not the sole purpose of this video, but a link to a study or mention of a source would have much better than to just dismiss it and move on. Especially since something that looks so clearly like a human footprint could not possibly be attributed to simple erosion.
Turns out, it wasn’t erosion, it was most likely a carved hoax. I went looking for myself, and found this excellent study and breakdown of all the supposed prints attributes that indicate strongly that it was carved. Looking closely at it with their observations have convinced me, after all, that it is, in fact, a hoax. I confess myself disappointed and kinda sad to learn that… but also relieved to have an actual answer, and one that isn’t flippant, dismissive, condescending, or disrespectful.
Anyway, here’s the link for those interested: paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm
Incidentally, I am one of those (usually) silent readers who is really struggling to ascertain the truth in this area, and am open to what I was raised to believe being wrong… but the absolute nastiness and pettiness that I see in the comments on this video (and elsewhere in the whole evolution/creationist debate) are a HUGE deterrent to hearing what you all have to say. (I acknowledge that both sides are guilty of this.) A large percentage of the comments under this video are derisive, nasty, scornful and mocking, and all the unnecessary comments about Taylor Marshall and the other fellow are equally off-putting. I am not a particular Taylor Marshall fan myself, but the comments about him that have nothing to do with the subject of the video, are also a huge turn-off for someone like me who is honestly trying to weigh all of this and find the truth.
The presentation matters as much as the content. Just keep that in mind.
I'd just like to say it's so wonderful and refreshing to see a comment that's so open minded and, for lack of a better term, reasonable. I'd personally recommend you look into the work of Jonathan Pageau, and his brother Matthew Pageau's book "The Language of Creation" for an interesting take on the cosmology and symbolism in Genesis.
I really appreciate everything you had to say and also the way you have balanced the ease with which it APPEARS trent accepted the scientific conclusion of one scientist. Scientific conclusion are often wrong(maybe he researched it better that the video lets on, idk)
I haven’t seen any nasty comments though. Unless you mean getting a chuckle out of reading beowulf as a historical record. But anyway, i think trent was kind and treated the subject quite fairly. Except like i said the potential ease with which he accepted a scientific conclusion.
Thank you for posting your own findings!
That’s incredibly helpful for those of us learning about both sides of this topic.
What is YEC? And how did you get your link to stay in the comment? I've experienced several times providing a link to my comment causing the comment to get deleted. UA-cam seems very arbitrary regarding their policies.
It seem the video is attacking dinosaur existence in the middle ages, which is different from just dismissing YEC. You are correct regarding presentation of argument though.
I was raised as a YEC (as a Protestant) and spent years debating evolution and defending the literalistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2.
What ultimately proved the biggest factor in changing my mind about my previous views was when I first encountered teaching about Genesis 1 and 2 from Catholic sources like Scott Hahn that looked at their covenant meaning and their place in salvation history.
I realized, to my shock, that I had been reading and defending Genesis for years, and had never learned a single thing about what those passages actually meant to the Faith.
I also realized that whether those passages were understood to be literal history or not, had basically no impact on understanding what they were meant to teach us.
Essentially I realized that I had spent so much effort on trying to defend God's word being literal, and I had completely and absolutely missed what God was intending to say.
From that point on I became convinced that the entire debate about literal young earth creation was a largely useless distraction. People can believe what they want in that regard. What actually matters is if you understand what the text MEANS.
I think the devil is perfectly happy to have young earth creationists, so long as being young earth creationists keeps them distracted from what God is actually saying to them.
Since Christ and St. Paul regarded "those passages" to be "literal history", that should matter to anyone who professes to be a Christian.
@@thomasjefferson6 or maybe Jesus just didn't think it was important enough to contradict what everyone thought and knew it would just become a big pointless distraction from his purpose and message.
Slight correction- Coelophysis is pronounced “See-Lo-Fye-Sis” other than that, great work Trent!
Why not Che-láw-f'sis?
As a former atheist turned Catholic, I can confirm that there are waaaaay better arguments against evolution that appealed to me than what Hall and Marshall were talking about.
Look up video interviews with David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer on the subject. The first crack in the armor against evolution for me was a UA-cam video titled “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” that was put out by The Hoover Institute.
After watching that I began looking up other videos by people in that video and the UA-cam algorithm showed me many other very reasonable and scientifically defendable stances AGAINST Darwinian Evolution as it is taught in schools.
As a believer I would not deny the possibility that God made a small miracle each time a new species appeared on earth. But I find it more reasonable that He created a universe where some laws allowed the appearance of new species from the existing ones. Such laws must not necessarily be identical to those produced by darwinists, but I will change them only for more complete and convincing ones.
Darwinian evolution, by itself, is considered incomplete even by many atheist evolutionary biologists. The Mendelian theory of genetics helped to fill in some of the gaps left by it, so that's another win for Catholics in my book. I also don't personally see many good reasons why God cannot work through something like evolution to achieve His goals.
@@Stormer13 The question is not "What could God have done" but "What did he say he did?" Read it for yourself.
Gus, exactly right. There's a lot of jumping through hoops on this topic. Yes there's a lot of holes in evolution. It doesn't follow to then craft a blended secular/religious narrative of creation. The entire secular narrative of creation is suspect.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 I don't believe God has to explicitly say everything He does just for Him to do it. That's putting an arbitrary limit on God just for the sake of the limit.
I'm partway through the video and just had to pause to shoot out the editor. Sick job, dude. These videos are slick.
Hall recently interviewed Dr. Rômulo Carleial, a creationist who is also an evolutionary biology researcher at Kew, London, with his doctorate from Oxford. Will you be addressing the arguments presented in that video?
its aways weird to my brazillian ass to see foreigners talking about Dr Romulo
Well, this is something new. I guess I was living under a rock. I had no idea this was even a "thing". Seems like a lot of energy wasted for nothing.
Ugh. I'm with you.
Evolutionists Darwinist is a big deal.
Right but one need not accept Neodarwinianism to accept or explain descent with modification or natural selection. This dynamic can still hold under a different metaphysical framework, imc
uding a theologically compatible one. Thus we come to theistic evolution.
Science is not beholden to any particular model so a modified evolutionary model. So invalidating one type of evolutionary model does not invalidate the entire dataset since alternatives exist, such as again, theistic evolution, also the currently popular extended evolutionary synthesis model, even a combination of these.
It is good to have alternatives though as it keeps the exploration of truth and refining the arguments and analysis where it might otherwise stagnate. Afterall, we can not account for unknown unknowns and usually only some known unknowns, so we must continually refine and reform our understanding from falsehoods here below.
But the evolution versus creation debate is a cultural artifact of the 1800s over categories that on both sides, are not really relevant anymore as our understanding from study, or magisterial guidance, has increased.
deepened rather
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH #283 “ The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.”
Oh man, were going to need Laura to come in with another love song to heal the rift between Dr T and Trent 🤣
Good video. I’m a Trad and I sometimes watch both these guys but I don’t know why they feel the need to discuss a topic so far removed from their areas of expertise. Trent seems correct that the Church has no opinion here and as St Augustine points out she has no need to yoke her theology to an opinion about material science. The latter come and go.
Dragon time: my ancestor slew one in Scotland in the early twelfth century. It was three yards long and the color of an adder. It would open its jaws really wide and threaten peasants and livestock. It sounds like a saltwater crocodile that was really lost. I feel a bit bad for it but if there’s a dragon you’ve got to slay it. Noblesse oblige and all that.
To aaronsomerville2124: One of the wisest remarks I have seen related to this video! Thank you! I just wish that there was more caution about getting hitched to any "scientific consus". The Church got into trouble doing that before, when the scientific "consensus" was against Copernicus and was for Ptolemy.
To quote Jimmy and Dom, “It’s always demons.”
Based fellow Mysterious World enjoyer
@@hacker4chn841 Likewise 😎
What concerns me regarding theistic evolution is how its proponents almost always propose something adjacent to polygenism or "Adam was just the head of a tribe." I also find it incredibly find it quite frustrating to see St. Augustine propped up as if he is some precursor to theistic evolution. He believed nothing like that - in fact, he was the youngest earth creationist because he believed that the material world was created instantaneously. He could be wrong, but to use him to promote theistic evolution is disingenuous.
Thanks for the comment! -Vanessa
You should look into the Thomistic institute’s work on evolution. They argue that a historical Adam from whom everyone descended is compatible with the current scientific consensus, if I remember correctly.
@@calebadcock363how so?
@immaculata_marian I recommend “The Geneological Adam and Eve”, I think that you would find it an interesting read. It tackles a lot of this.
@@calebadcock363It is. Scientists even observed how with a recent study of birds speciation how the new genetic variation of bird (the first gen) only mated within themselves.
That chinese beast looked nothing like a any dinosaur lol.
That beast looks more like a lizard than a dinosaur, yet he extrapolates to dinosaur
haha interesting take! -Vanessa
Saying "you're free to believe that" is true, if we remember we have a moral responsibility to seek and share the truth, not just what we wish were true. I don't think these conversations put enough stress on this point.
He is saying not to use stupid arguments - can't take us to truth
@@MarekGabro I agree, but I also go beyond that. If someone holds to young earth creationism out of a misplaced sense of piety, they're not fulfilling their moral duty to seek and share the truth.
Dear@@tafazziReadChannelDescription, well, evolution is rather a peripheral point, and not even dogma.
I personally would prefer that Catholics study what the CCC says about blessings, and learn more about the various kinds of dignity of human beings. And perhaps spend some time in meditation on how we need to honor the pope, and not be judgmental, even if we don't fully understand what he is doing.
@susand3668 "the truth will set you free" it says. Church fathers were intelligent people, though truly about what they know, discussed instead of blind following. They followed after understanding why it is good. God gave us intellect and we have to use it
Our Truth is completely different from Science's material presumptions if it doesn't place God at the center of everything.
Is it possible that Medieval people found some dinosaur bones and drew these drawings as a imagining of what dinosaurs looked like?
Love the dinosaur thumb nail! Gotta love Haggisaurus Rex!! 😂🤣❤️🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸
hahaha! It's a good one! -Vanessa
The video description does not list the stuff Trent said at the end of the video
Just fixed this. -Thomas
I grew up in a hard core literal 6 day creation church as I got older I accepted something like theistic evolution, until I went to college and took biology courses. Despite the professors being all in on evolution I came away believing that evolution has a lot of explanatory power, but little else. Macro level evolution seems unbelievably unlikely, but 6 day creation seems silly. I am left with this squishy, "God did it, but I don't know what IT is." position.
I think that’s very fair. The most honest answer is “we don’t know”.
Macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution + time. Most people can't actually grasp how long 100million years is.
Old Earth Creationism for the win! Basically that the Earth is billions of years old but macroevolution is false as God made all over long periods of time. Btw, I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, but leaning agnostic on this to be honest
@@SneakyEmu Most people can't grasp how unlikely an advantageous mutation is, and how unlikely that, in turn, makes any macro-evolutionary account that relies on the twin levers of random mutation and natural selection.
When I got to university, I found out that evolution had no explanatory power in specific cases (e.g. how the woodpecker evolved) or where new genetic information comes from. My biology profs were quite insistent that the real evidence for evolution comes from paleontology, while my geology/paleontology profs said that the main evidence for evolution comes from biology.
It's pretty easy to tell that dragons, in Europe at least, are based on snakes and lizards. Dragon comes from a word that actually means "very large snake". You gotta ignore quite a bit of evidence to claim that these are depictions of dinosaurs
As I said elsewhere, the only dinosaur I can think of at the moment, which even vaguely resembles the shape of a classic medieval dragon, would be our updated reconstructions of Spinosaurus. At least that dinosaur has a massive size, a long skinny body, a paddle-like tail, relatively short hind-limbs, large clawed forelimbs, a crocodilian-like jaw, and extra decorative features like the sail. Those features do at least come together to yield something, which resembles how the classic dragon usually has a more serpentine and lizard/crocodile-like frame with extra embellishments.
So while it lacks wings, I could at least hypothesize see Spinosaurus standing in for some kind of flightless marsh/river dragon, due to its body shape and mostly aquatic lifestyle. However, all the other dinosaurs seem to barely look anything like a medieval dragon, unless one were to create a chimera of features from different dinosaurs (and possibly pterosaurs).
@@markcobuzzi826 definitely not pterosaurs, they would've been described as birds or bats more like due to their appearance. And even our modern reconstruction of spinosaurus is a stretch
It makes way more sense to compare them to snakes, lizards, and other reptiles. That's actually why they're also called Wyrms, which is derived from the same word as our word Worm 🪱.
I always figured dragons were demons whom St George did battle with.
@lupea8079 It typically was. Dragons were associated with the Devil. In fact an old Benedictine Prayer refers to Satan as a dragon.
@@johnhoelzeman6683
That was my main intended point, how even comparing one of the more bizarre dinosaurs like Spinosaurus to dragons would be a stretch. And I meant to suggest that pterosaurs too look almost nothing like dragons/wyverns aside from their wings (and sometimes a long diamond-tipped tail), requiring one to amalgamate features from less related archosaurs before said pterosaur could start to even resemble one.
All month I’ve been thinking about “that one Catholic guy that doesn’t pray the luminous mysteries on Thursday, whatever happened to him” I now know and have the name to put to the face 😅
As a geoscientist I am completely baffled how young earth creationists can ignore so many different sources of evidence for an old Earth. There is always a lot of talk about fossils, but what about the different geochronological methods such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, luminescence dating, and electron spin resonance dating which all show an old Earth.
for radiocarbon dating you need to know the proportion at the start to know how many years passed, so it's useless in determining something of old
Don't worry the commenters are already here to enlighten you
You are 100% right. To quibble around, you might add as methods of dating those involving radioisotopes and their decaying products with half-lives much longer than 5700 years. They help us date geological strata, and fossils contained in them, which are millions of years old.
Allow me to say as a Christian and a scientist (certainly not the best around, but there you are) I am *overwhelmingly* baffled by young earth creationists.
Creationism is a relatively recent movement born among protestants in England as reaction to the theory of evolution of Darwin, but it basically died out in its motherland. Instead, it flourished in the USA.
While there are some "black sheep" in any family, like those of the Kobe center, you will not find educated Catholics in Europe who vocally support Creationism. We have learnt the lesson that an intelligent person such as St. Augustine taught us in the V century, i.e. 1500 years ago.
@@snokehusk223, the calibration curves from three ring data show when the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio change, so this is not a problem. And this still leaves other methods such as luminescence dating which work on different principals than radiocarbon dating, not to mention dendrochronology itself.
@@Hafstrom1845 atmospheric? what does the atmosphere have with decay of organic matter?
as for other ones I am not familiar
Maybe I'm missing something Trent but I can't find the link to Father Robinson's podcast that you mentioned at the end.
Just updated that! -Thomas
I am a protestant turned Catholic. ICR and AIG both played massive roles in my faith years ago. They helped take the spiritual mental ascent of belief in Jesus while living a heathen lifestyle and challenged me with really real world implications of the faith. Having to reconcile and root faith in reality caused me to become very serious about the every other aspect of the faith. God became a reality, Christ a real person and not a mythical example pious living, the scriptures became reliable, the church and other doctrines were no longer up for grabs and at the mercy of subjective wants and inclinations. I praise God for young earth creationism and to the day, after many interactions with nay sayers, have never heard anyone give convincing proof to the contrary... and if I'm open minded and submitted to Christ enough to go from Catholic hating fundamentalism to being Catholic and submitting to Christ's teaching even at the expense of comfort, close relationships, and ego... then that's really saying something. By the way, I absolutely love Catholic answers and se it as an invaluable resource. However, this is one topic I think, at least Trent, a man who has helped me tremendously to see the truth, has got wrong.
If you hold to a Young Earth on grounds of piety, you're wrong. It's not a belief that nakes you a better Christian, it's just not part of divine Revelation.
If you hold to it based on science, you're still wrong but it's far easier to point you to the facts.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription weird, I never indicated I held to it to be pious. Or that it's divinely revealed. I think you responded to the wrong comment.
@@menoftheclothKTOG great, if your concerns are just in the scientific sphere that means we share our interpretation of the magisterium on this issue.
I'm Happy to talk about science if you want
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Though it's not dogmatically defined by the church I don't pit science against the creator of the creation. However, your right that my concerns are the lack scientific evidence for macro evolution. Whatever the truth of God's handiwork is, I have never heard a convincing argument that can't be easily dispelled by either evidence, logic or both.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I do work so replies may be a day or two apart.
The “AI generated” on the impeccably crafted images of dinosaurs and humans living together was very helpful, I wouldn’t have known they were edited otherwise.
@counsel of Trent - how about Adam and Eve. Do you believe they are real people? a lot of modernist Catholics think they are not. But that creates a lot of problems like Jesus is mentioned as the second Adam. These are things which I feel makes it difficult to reconcile the creation account in Genesis and macro evolution (all species including humans evolved from a single cell).
I really wish the young earthers would give up on this argument. Its embarrassing and giving ammo to athiests to reject the Gospel.
Eh, you can make a strong scientific case for the young earth. And the Bible *seems* to suggest the young earth. I won’t give up on what I think the Bible teaches because some atheist scientists are pushing evolution.
Atheists will always find a reason to reject the gospel, it doesn’t matter what we tell them about evolution. If not evolution, it’s Gods morality. Or it’s giving up their own lifestyle. Or it’s materialism. There’s always a reason to reject Christ, so no need to give up the fight against evolution
@@timothyvenable3336That's a problem. Why is there a "fight" against evolution? This is science we're discussing. We hurt our cause by attacking evolution, and even if we prove it's false, it won't help us in converting people so what's the point? lol
Also, it's not only atheist scientists, but also the vast majority of christian and catholic scientists you're going against here.
If evolution is not true, obviously it should not be believed. It is attacked because many Christians don't believe it is true. Evolution is the cornerstone of the secular worldview. It is their creation myth. It also happens to be scientifically weak despite the number of people who believe it.
@@helovaz97 I wouldn’t say the “vast majority” of Christian scientists…
But I agree salvation and evangelism has nothing to do with evolution. But we still need to have integrity with the word of God. There is a scientific case for a young earth (against evolution) but evolution is so mainstream and so popular that anything against it is brushed off as pseudoscience… dispute the fact evolution is 20% science and 80% theory based guesswork
@@timothyvenable3336, you may be able to make a tentative argument for YEC, but not a strong scientific one.
I love being a traditional catholic and it makes me sad the main trad faces we have on UA-cam are literally this out to lunch. Thanks for this Trent.
It’s funny because the papacy is also a major stumbling block for Hall and Marshall!
The Catholic faith seems to be a stumbling block for Pope Francis and 80% of the bishops
@@elcidcampeador9629 >the YEC is also against the church hierarchy
wooow sooo not surprised!
@@elcidcampeador9629 ah, another who has a stumbling block with the papacy and the magisterium. But yes, tell me as a lay magistrate why it’s a stumbling block for Pope Francis?
Marshall is not a sedevacantist.
False. The papacy is not a stumbling block for him. He is not a sedevacantist.
Definitely improved visuals with the editing but maybe dial down the sound effects a touch. Gets distracting after a while.
Not gonna lie, I love Dr. Tay! I was a biology major back in the day though so there’s no way I could ever be sold by YEC. In fact, when I was an edgy college student who would argue with people about this nonsense, this is an argument I came across from none other than Kent Hovind, crazy evangelical tax evader. He’s insane and runs a YEC theme park in Florida called “dinosaur adventure land.” Look him up, it’ll keep you busy for an afternoon 😂
It's in Alabama now, not Florida. It's kind of tacky to identify him as a "evangelical tax evader". It's really just ad hominem garbage by attacking someone's character just because you disagree with him. Attack his arguments not his character. I bet you can't, that's why you resort to name calling
Good video! Just a small correction: Coelophysis is usually pronounced see-lo-FY-sis, rather than ko-LA-fuh-sis.
If creationists are accepting dragons based on drawings, they will also have to accept centaurs. Plenty of drawings of those around. And, after all, ;why would someone draw a creature that didn't exist?
I think the idea is that minotaurs and phoenixes (phoenixi?) clearly have origins in certain cultures. But just about every culture on the planet tells stories of giant terrifying lizard monsters.
@@Pyr0Ben Which does not address the point. The point is creationists offering drawings as evidence of reality. Why some drawings and not others?
1 clement talks about a literal Phoenix
@@SLERKED Lots of people talked about centaurs. Lots of people talked about unicorns. The history of humans is filled with stories of fantastical animals. There are still people who believe the L:och Ness monster exists. As I said, if you're relying on pictures drawn by humans as evidence, you're going to have to accept a lot more than dragons.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 clement was a direct disciple to Peter and Paul
Would this damage the foundations of Christianity if it was mythical?
Do Jimmy Akins alien stigmata next
…alien what?
Jimmy was just theorizing and surmising to a hypothetical question asked......are you suggesting there's a problem that needs to be deconstructed with what he had to say?
Because he wasn't scoffing at or criticizing anyone else and he wasn't suggesting the Church had any specific teaching on it. It was really clear it was his own personal ideas of possibilities.
That's not in the same category as what Trent addressed here
Unlike Hall and Marshall, Jimmy didn’t impose that as a teaching of the Church that Catholics must believe.
@@Deuterocomical That said it does not appear as though Hall and Marshall are imposing it in such a way. At least based off of the clips shown in the video here.
@@TheJmlew11 Maybe I’m misremembering, but I believe Hall is on record making such statements
debate Taylor marshal
Not sure if such an engagement could even be considered a debate. It'd be like a PhD candidate debating a first grader
Again, many kudos to the editing!
Well done. Science and Religion ought to complement each other with their own expertise.
This one video was well balanced, and by also calling out the incoherent commenters makes it worth to promulgate it impartially. Keep up the good work backed up with the Church's authoritative facts, and avoid any personal ambiguous opinion.
Counsel of Trent does a good job of highlighting the vast differences between Catholics and Protestants, don’t you agree?
@@bobinindiana
I did write well done and well balanced, didn't I?
I had to add to "avoid any personal ambiguous opinions", 'cuz sometimes he has had some minor "slurs" that didn't entice its promulgation.
Calvin Smith with AiG Canada has listed several drawings worldwide of dinosaurs 🦕 so maybe the subject is debatable. The vestibule of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, features a huge long Chinese-style dragon suspended from the ceiling. The Museum also has a huge complete dinosaur skeleton.
@@bobinindiana
The whole point is not if dinosaurs existed, but if humans lived together with them
Perhaps you should go watch Kent Hovind's videos too, he also did a good job at showing skeletons of giant people! 😂
@@therealong Why do you make fun of Kent Hovind, a man broken by prison?
Darwinist teach dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and man evolved from molecules a couple of million years ago.
Genesis teaches that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour days and that Adam named the dinosaurs 🦕
There's also the potential to consider that dragons were influenced by fossils. The cyclops was likely the result of mammoth bones, which had a single large opening due to the snout. Dragon could be similar. They found the bones and then tried to explain them within the context of their myths.
If anything, the beauty and history of evolutionary biology is evidence of God’s creativity
Oh yes, all that death and mutation really speaks to the beauty of God's design
I always thought the same.
@@elcidcampeador9629 your assumption seems to assume that these things you mentioned are “bad” or that the universe “should’nt” be that way. But since you did not bring the universe into being. How could you possibly be in a position to know that?
I myself am a YEC and I can definitely say there are some pretty weak and dumb arguments thrown around. This one should have been left as a theory for Marshal to ponder on his own time.
Every YEC argument is weak and dumb.
@@spiderdxn2263 Perhaps from a scientific or incomplete viewpoint, but God creating something from nothing in contrast to the laws of nature shows us that science is not always the answer.
Moreover, my reasoning for a young earth stems from a philosophical argument for why there was not a macro-evolutionary process of man or beast. No evolution=no need for billions of years to fit a narrative.
I remember more than a year ago watching a Taylor Marshall bible study video and being blown away by him casually discussing dinosaurs co-existimg with humans. It's embarassing for someone with an academic knowledge of scripture not knowing basic history and makes religion look worse to unbelievers.
Or basic biology 🦕🦖
Clear and compelling. As a Catholic scientist, I cringe when uninformed, but well-meaning folks use anti-scientific arguments to support the faith. The truth doesn’t need such assistance. Excellent quality video Trent!
_"but __10:27__ scientists have now shown that the __10:28__ alleged human Footprints at the plexy __10:30__ tracks only look human because of __10:33__ erosion"_
Have they _shown_ it, as in replicating a foot print from some known fossil species, and speeding up erosion to get at least 10 % results replicating the Paluxy footprints?
Or have they _hypothesised_ that this is what happened, and you overdo their epistemic weight?
The latter
@@thehitomiboy7379 I'd tend to agree, just would like to know if Trent Horn does so too!
These vain and effete self-proclaimed "trad" influencers are so tiresome and, frankly, often dim on this topic. Which is really too bad, because I agree with them on most other topics.
I've lost patience with trad influences altogether. I love the Latin Mass, too.
I like Marshall and Hall in that they take the faith very seriously and are uncompromising with the secular culture. With that said, I cannot get on board with YEC. Unless Satan has somehow been intentionally tricking us and playing greatly with our minds, there just seems no good basis at all for it. The evidence seems to be too overwhelming. I actually think the Bible can be enhanced in some ways when you do not take everything written in it literally. There can be more power and meaning in a metaphorical sense than a literal sense. This YEC I also think has undoubtedly contributed to many smarter people leaving the Church perhaps. Though I do find YEC to be a thing more in certain Protestant circles.
If you leave because other people hold to a younger earth then you weren’t there for Jesus. This is a bad argument and shouldn’t be used. Just make it clear than neither OEC or YEC is a part of the gospel and these problems go away.
@@jordandthornburg I think that argument probably applies today. I think in the past (and again, more in Protestant circles) you have kids who grew up in families being taught that YEC is the only truth. That almost the entire Bible is to be taken literally. They could not believe in that and so they gave up. Maybe they learned later that there were other ways of understanding the faith, but probably too late for many of them at that point. Though even today you still have many Protestants in the south that hold to this YEC view and teach it as absolute truth. Many kids are still growing up in that. And in today's high information era and increased access to higher education, I think you are going to continue to see a decline in faith.
Crazy people say crazy things, whether they believe in God or no. As a dinosaur I hate all changes but feel snug and happy in Lough Ness. If you could reduce the number of tourists that would be nice. I did promise Columba that I would never harm a human again, but I didn’t realize how harassed I would be.
Change your definition of "human". Odin knows they do it themselves in the lead-up to the most horrific acts they commit against each other.
Do you feel like some young earth Catholics are converts who can't shake that last bit of Bible-is-literal Protestantism?
Interesting perspective! -Vanessa
Isn't literal interpretation of the Bible a Catholic thing? Real presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, papal succession, et cetera.
4:44 Especially as no Stegosaurus fossils have been found in Cambodia ...
How many fossils of animals having lived 1000 years ago do you find in Cambodia at all? A Stegosaurus or a dog or a monkey having died in Cambodia 1000 years ago would have quickly disintegrated. The existence of lots of fossils is actually one argument for the unique conditions of the Flood. Conditions that did not persist in Cambodia 1000 years ago.
there are many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago, even people that pretend to do science related to the flood admit that there are more recent fossils and that the record does not stop at whenever they date the flood.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription _"many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago"_
From the Cambodian rain forest? From Monsoon areas?
Oh good heavens, that is not how you pronounce Coelophysis...
The camera click/slide click sound effect was kind of annoying with how often it was used.
I do think that most YECs believe that dinosaurs are very very rare in history, because most or all were killed in the flood. The real thing that needs to be proved is that dinosaurs existed pre-noah and dragons are based on legends passed down of their existence. If you're gonna tackle this issue you really should look into the Loch Ness monster or Mokele-mbembe.
I am unsure on my stance on YEC. I just find this stuff interesting and I find a lot of arrogance on both sides.
Probably many dinosaurs 🦕 died in the Ice Age but those not in the area of the Ice Age would have lived on to die out of other causes. Some must have died recently because the flesh on their bones is sometimes elastic.
@@bobinindiana That's a good point. That's some of the most convincing evidence. There is a protein found in their bones that should have rotted away, but is still there. I think someone made a response to that, but I did not find it particularly convincing.
@@tylerbrock6047 Thank you for the kind words! I’m elderly so the correct details on this are beyond my knowledge so please post more if you have time.
I love Taylor Marshall and Kennedy Hall, but I see more evidence for an interpretation that doesn’t rest on a ‘young Earth’
@Stephane Colibri
You may love their boldness, but you can't detect their sophistry.
Well put
@@therealong
Thanks! ;)
@@juantoomany7202
I found the sound effects during this episode distracting. Mostly because I, like I'm sure plenty of people, listen to Trent's UA-cam videos as if they were his podcast episodes - because UA-cam is our main podcast source. So it's just like I'm hearing random clicks during narration. The sound effects would make more sense if trance videos were more like short films than lectures.
We have to consider the sources for proof of evolution and for creation. Picking and choosing from the scriptures is not as appealing to me as it was before. If Jesus hadn't mentioned the flood, I could think of it as allegorical or mythological. Matthew 24:37-39
There is not a rule such as "if Jesus refers to something which was common knowledge at His time, then that thing is literal". Jesus also refers to Jonah, whose book is labeled as a literary work even by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
@@Zimisce85 that's my rule. I think a flood makes more sense than a comet and dinosaurs turning into birds over 66.6 million years too. And I don't think Jesus would mention Jonah or the Flood in such a way if they did not happen. It would be deceptive. There were plenty of parts of the old testament he could have referenced, but he chose those.
About Beowulf, the current dominant thinking about this in Nordic academia is laid out by archaeologist Bo Gräslund.
Beowulf is a historical poem, an ancestor tale, in which a family recount a glorious event for one of their family ancestors. In this case, the poem was probably constructed some time after the disaster of the 500s. Grendel, whose name is derived from ,,meagre"(so you could say, Grendel is the one who makes you meager/thin, a kenning and personification of starvation, misunderstood by later Christian scribes).
In essence, Beowulf aids the Danes ending the famine caused by 11 years of poor growth, by enacting the same policy his host family, the Wulfingas, already have done at least once before, expelling a significant portion of the population to bring populations levels down to what the arable land can support. Gräslund has published a book about this, I believe the English title is ,,The Nordic Beowulf". I also recommend reading the Gutasaga and Geatica, if you want to put it into its proper historical context.
I think it's an incredibly cool thing that Beowulf is preserved, that we have this tale, and that brilliant minds have been able to place it both in time, and in the places that are not obvious from the get-go. I am tired beyond belief in nerds who want to twist it, the Röksten, and similar Nordic, late ancient/early medieval common Germanic heritage into weird and obviously untrue takes for the sake of an already made conclusion.
Would you consider talking to stephen meyer?
I am partial to many young earth creationist arguments. But more or less I just find many of their explanations for everything as simply intellectually entertaining as opposed to serious discussion. However, I do find the idea that humanity has only been around for 6 thousand years as very much true. I also don’t believe in evolution from a theological standpoint, but also from a scientific standpoint. It’s not really a serious theory. It’s just dogma. Something scientists go along with for the time being to try and explain the world despite it having more holes in it than Swiss cheese. Evolution breaks the laws of nature. Non organic matter creating organic matter and simple life somehow becoming organisms made up of billions of cells. And all their answer is, is that somehow, with enough time. Anything is possible. Bunch of BS. Not to mention that scientists have been saying that having billions of years doesn’t help their argument. It’s based off the idea that if you put a bunch of chimps in a room with a typewriter, eventually they’ll make Shakespeare. Not happening. Natural selection doesn’t create wholly new organisms, all it does is create variations of the same organism. And it never uses genes that weren’t there. The only explanation that scientists have come up with is mutation. Outside of science fiction, mutations in virtually every conceivable way never create anything beneficial for an organism. Quite the opposite. I hear that some of the scientific community is abandoning natural selection evolution because it simply doesn’t make sense anymore and are going toward the idea that evolution can proactively learn in a trait based manner. This was a evolutionary theory proposed before Darwin by some guy I can’t remember. It was only taken somewhat seriously because it was basing its claims on too many unknowns. Overall, theistic evolution is just a way people have tried to shoehorn in science dogma into church to make it sound more amiable to atheists and scientist who will make fun of the faith regardless. I could go on, but I just don’t like the idea of Christian’s catering to the spirit of the age
I have a copy of Beowulf's recitation in Old English, it's lovely btw, and it may have been a while since I've read the text, but I'm pretty sure if I referred to the text again, which can be accessed for free on the Internet Sacred Text Archive, he was explicitly a descendent of Adam twisted by ancestral and personal sin (inherited by Cain, and therefore descendent of Adam).
What's really funny about that Beowulf bit is that there is an actual dragon in the third act, and they choose Grendel of all things to be a therapod? Wild. Granted, the dragon's description is clearly fantastical and matches no known animal. Not that it apparently stopped people from seeing a therapod in Grendel, apparently.
God I would have loved to have shown Tolkien that interview.
We should be skeptical of evolution, no reason we should bend the knee to modern science when the modern science also teaches men can be women
It seems like there's good evidence for something of a middle ground.
There's decent evidence for micro evolution, which means that macro evolution is technically possible. However, there's little actual evidence for it, and some good evidence against.
There was a study done on the DNA of hundreds of species stored in a DNA bank in.. I think Norway. They found that most of the species alive today showed a similar number of mutations. (not exactly mutations, but I forget what they're called.) the problem with this is that, if current evolutionary theory is true, animals with a shorter breeding cycle like ants or flies should show significantly more mutations due to their shorter life cycle and more rapid breeding (meaning more chances for mutation.) they don't, which indicates that the current understanding of evolution is either significantly incomplete, or just wrong.
Another major thing against the current theory is what happened after mass extinction. If the current theory was true, then after a mass extinction you would expect to see the slow redevelopment of diverse and specialized life. That's not what we see though. The fossil record indicates a near instant, spontaneous explosion of complex life after each mass extinction. The current theory can't explain that.
I'm not saying evolution is false, but if it's true, our understanding of it is woefully incomplete.
This comment is the epitome of "defend medieval dinosaurs to own the modernists." Modern science may be wrong about some things but it's not wrong about *everything*, and admitting that does mean you are "bending the knee to modern science". IF that were the case then the next time you get sick, instead of going to a hospital you should have someone drain you of your blood, since that's that they did as early as a couple hundred years ago (the idea being to get the bad blood causing the sickness out of you). "Modern science isn't right about everything, therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived with humans" is an embarrassment argument.
there's better evidence for evolution than for the resurrection, a rational person that accepts the latter should accept the former, too.
Tbh I’m not sure if I would classify those two together, since biology clearly teaches two clear genders (intersex are not a new gender, but a special condition where the person isn’t fully XX or XY. And even that is not applicable to the trans movement nowadays).
@@samueljennings4809 yeah, if we are to use technical language, the human species has two sexes. The concept of "intersex" is "any person who has a disease or condition that gravely impacts the sex-dependant structures and characteristics of the body", it's defined in reference to the binary that always applies in humans.
European and Chinese cultures both have numerous references to "dragons". Cultures often preserve memories. This may be a real memory of real creatures from the past rather than a mere invention or fiction whose memory was preserved.
No, it's because there's such a thing as crocodiles.
Tying scientific theories to theological truths damages the theological position nine times out of ten because scientific theories are usually physically provable while theological ones are usually only logically provable. So what would someone on the fence believe if they appear to contradict?
I am and always will be a young earth creationist. However, I can admit that having Taylor Marshall agree with me is definitely a potential mark against my side.
While I am a Catholic Christian who disagrees with Young Earth Creationism, having Taylor Marshall agree with you should not be an automatic mark against your beliefs/conclusions. That is, any more than how some of “those bad guys from WWII” believing tobacco is unhealthy should be a mark against any group in general, who thinks smoking is bad for one’s health and should be avoided.
I remember going over some lists of logical fallacies, with two of them being the “Ad Hominem Fallacy” and the “Fallacy Fallacy”. The former involves someone trying to refute a certain conclusion, by erroneously going after the person himself delivering the arguments, rather than refuting the actual arguments. The latter involves someone erroneously believing that a certain conclusion must be wrong, solely because some individuals happened to do a poor/fallacious job of arguing for said conclusion.
@@markcobuzzi826 k
Dinosaur is just what they call dragons.
It's unfortunate that videos such as this are necessary to refute the troubled brains of two lost souls, but such is life. Thank you, Trent, for correctly putting Church teaching, and things that are not Church teaching, into their proper perspective.
For what it's worth, there is a theological perspective that says Einstein's Theory of Relativity shows how 6 days in Geneses 1 can correlate to billions of years here on Earth, since according to Einstein, time is not a constant across all points in the universe. It's the same reason why time would pass differently for an astronaut travelling to Jupiter and back than it does for people on Earth. Food for thought.
The Church is very clear on these issues. The only dogmatic teaching is that we humans are descended from an original set of parents. The Church is silent beyond that.
Does anyone know the reference Trent made to Augustine? I have the book, "On the Literal Intrepretation of Genesis", but I can't find the section that Trent either read or paragraphed.
This Trent is where you are out for lunch. I called you on Catholic Answers and you said that Cain and Seth's wives werent human....
They were homo sapiens but most likely not descendants of Adam and Eve.
Even with this model, it wouldn't even take 2000 years for all humans to be descendants of Adam
I'm sorry, but macroevolution is just a trash theory. I'm not talking about dragons or Medieval dinosaur survivals either.
Agreed
Trent is not talking about macroevolution, so not sure why you have to be sorry.
Nobody is talking about macro evolution
@@johndeighan2495 the whole debate is on macro evolution lol that’s what everyone is talking about lol
@@ghostapostle7225 when people talk about evolution, they are referring to macro evolution
Dragons look nearly identical to some kinds of dinosaurs especially in art styles that are flat.
Ditto to the comment who mentioned the use of sound-effects in the editing. Definitely high-production editing, but the click sound effects are very distracting for following the audio.
Bodie Hodge of AiG says this about Bell:
Bishop Bell, who died in 1496, is buried in the foundation of the famous Carlisle Cathedral. The ornate brass engravings around the grave show several animals, some of which appear to be dinosaurs, like a long-neck sauropod and a horned ceratopsian.
As for Beowulf, it probably is historical fiction in the minds of YECs.
YEC thinking survived Darwin among Protestant clergyman until the late 19th century. Fundamentalists have never accepted Darwin. YEC started up again with Morse and Whitcomb.
Interestingly enough St. Augustine also attempted to use evidence from the fossil record after he found a giant molar which he believed to belong to one of the antediluvian Giants in book ix of Dei Civitas.
I'm just waiting for Kennedy and Marshall's inevitable public breakup 😂
Oh gosh I had no idea they were both YECs 😵💫
Thank you for being a strong catholic who doesnt use silly cope arguments. Once we start talking about Moses riding around on a dinosaur it strikes me as looking for a post hoc rationalization of things.
@TheCounselofTrent (Sorry if this is kinda random and unrelated to this video.) Just watched your Marian discussion with Allie Beth Stuckey over on her channel, and at one point you mentioned Nightcrawler from the 90s X-Men cartoon and the fact that he was portrayed as a Catholic. I wanted to give you a heads up that, as you probably would've guessed, they unfortunately did not stick to that portrayal with the new "X-Men '97" series. He's still portrayed as a "man of faith" in a very generic sense, but not overtly Catholic as he was. Kurt has always been one of my favorite characters in comics for that reason, so it's pretty disappointing, but definitely not surprising in any sense.
Lets not kid ourselves. The teaching of evolution has led many away from the Gospel
I'd be more likely led away if the young earth were a non-negotiable
@@gabrielethier2046 and if evolution were a non-negotiable?
@@Thedisciplemike it isn't so that's irrelevant
@gabrielethier2046 to use arguments from science to draw someone to God is quite purposeless. This is why neither form are dogma, but one actually gives glory to God more directly, whilst the other has led people away from God.
@@Thedisciplemike I don't believe in evolution because it's theologically fitting, I do because the scientific evidence points towards it, and I also believe in Jesus because there is good evidence for him.
Culture always had mythical creatures in the far outside wilderness where the unknown reigns,
For us today its aliens, big foot etc..
Honestly I think that supporting macro evolution is far more detrimental to the faith. It was intentionally designed to spread atheism and it does. Its also wildly unsupported by science. Macro evolution is a religion and is fundamentally anti Catholic. That is a much bigger issue.
Do you believe God created nature? Because if you do, things determined to be accurate about nature can't be at odds with revealed truth, since they have the same author. Evolution accurately explains the diversity of life, and whether one believes it's all random, or environment guided, or divinely guided, it's not really deniable at this point that it happens. If your faith is threatened by scientific truth, I don't think you really care about truth, only about tradition.
“Evolution accurately explains the diversity of life” - Really? What explanation does it offer? “Complex life evolved from simpler life - but we don’t know how.” I think that’s more accurately characterised as a non-explanation.
@@johndeighan2495 "Complex life evolved from simpler life, but we don't know how."
I didn't say that. Please don't strawman my argument.
"What explanation does it offer?"
The process of how life changes and diversifies over time in accord with sexual and environmental pressures. It's not that hard to understand.
@@ThePlayfarer I wasn't saying you said that. The quote marks perhaps gave that impression... but no, I wasn't paraphrasing you. I was summing up the theory of macro evolution.
Sure. It's an explanation of sorts. But what counts as an explanation, really? I mean, you can talk about the "process by which life diversifies over time in accord with sexual and environmental pressures" - but that's a bit like talking about the "process by which life comes into being over nine months as a result of sexual intercourse and the conditions of the uterus". If you can't speak to the mechanism, if you can't describe the process step by step, how we get from A to B to Z... have you really explained anything, except at the highest possible level of abstraction?
@@ThePlayfarerEvolution implies that God who is perfect as a cause, had imperfections in His creation that needed constant improvement/evolving. Which is obviously false and heretical. He is a perfect cause and doesn’t bake the cake half way. When He created “He saw that it was good” meaning it was perfect. Besides the creation was a supernatural act, not a natural one which needed multiple and complex processes.
The Sinclair Oil Brontosaurus proves that dinosaurs are alive in the 21st century! 🦕
Don't let any modernist materialist tell you otherwise!
Technically, dinosaurs and humans did coexist and still do… I always see some brightly feathered dinosaurs flying around my backyard, chirping their songs, and eating seeds from feeders we fill. And a certain white feathered flying dinosaur is even used to symbolize the Holy Spirit of the Trinity.
You had me in the first half, ngl.
The editing in this video is fantastic
The Director of Religious Education at my parish invited Hugh Owen from the Kolbe Center to give a talk at my parish as part of the youth ministry program (but it was open to everyone). It was the most scientifically illiterate and straight up embarrassing thing I'd ever witnessed. I actually talked with my priest about it and told him how harmful it was to expose the parish's children to this type of nonsense. Because once they grow up and realize that their parish peddled this type of garbage to them, they're going to bundle it with the rest of the faith and dismiss it altogether. I couldn't believe my otherwise excellent parish would host something like this. I absolutely blame Taylor Marshall and his ilk for mainstreaming this kind of stuff.
The fact that you can only try to shame people and gaslight them into believing your position without a single actual argument shows you are not nearly as wise as you claim to be. Have a modicum of shame and actually contribute to the dialogue. Try to not be a modern American who can only try to get the people in power to silence and destroy their opposition. try being loving and actually having a dialogue with people.
@@VACatholic He was there to witness the bad arguments, he's entitled to share his opinions. Evolution is true, just because it's not an article of Faith it doesn't mean we should stop holding people accountable for pushing the lie of young earth creationism. Truth is important, and this is a matter of science, not Faith, therefore it's correct to not have these "dialogues" happen before children who are there to recieve religious education, not witness a fringe opinion about science.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription You can believe whatever you want. He can say whatever he wants. I can point out that nothing he said is scientific, and everything he said is just about shame and gaslighting.
You asserting your scientific position is more dogmatic and True than the Church's teaching is just sad. But you are truly a modern man. Congratulations on that.
@@VACatholic You want him to write a paper about a talking no one has access to? How you know he didn't actually gave his reasons to the parish why he thought it was bad? Either you believe him or not and go on with your life.
@@ghostapostle7225 He gave his argument against it, and it had nothing to do with science, but only because people might stop being Catholic when they heard other people give their explanation of the science.
You seem very mad that I am criticizing him directly for his bad arguments and despicable conduct in interacting with another Catholic by backbiting through back channels rather than being a man and having a direct conversation during the talk. Or even just having a conversation afterwards, instead trying to use social pressure and gaslighting to get people to dismiss the other person without an actual argument. That's fine. You can go on your way too.
Your comment is exceedingly ironic. Thanks for the laugh!
Trent is kinda picking at the low hanging fruit here... granted that the human dinosaur coexistence concept from ancient literature and art isnt a strong argument in itself, that doesnt mean that those who speak about it dont have any other foundation for opposing evolution or an old universe. Throwing out the creationist position based only on this tenet is a little lazy... The Kolbe Center website has plenty of great arguments for why Catholics should reject evolution and the old universe on the grounds of faith and science. In terms of science alone, you can find innumerable Catholic experts and PHDs critiquing evolution and the old earth arguments as well. Radio Immaculata put out a good series of vids on this recently.
Hall and Marshall have made themselves into caricatures.
Trent look at postings by Stephen Myer. He claims that several scientists in have finally concluded Darwin's evolutionary theory is not valid in the macro but has some validity in in the micro changes we see. Therefore, Evolution does not explain how life began or the charts that show humans evolving from apes etc. DNA poses a problem for evolution. Look at John Lennox as well. They both have good insights into this subject.
i have an honest question, if evolution is real and we evolved from apes, at what point did death and suffering enter the world? through the fall of and sin of adam? was adam then the first human, do humans before adam sin?
i ask this not to stir trouble but i want to hear from a real roman catholic please
If someone rejects creation in favour of evolution, then they have no need for Christ
Wrong.
Hall/Marshall 0. Horn 1.
I find Marshall to be somewhat of a poseur both intellectually and politically. His commentaries often betray the intelligent, informed persona he attempts to present. Politically, he’s not a conservative, not in the American context anyway. He’s a populist.
The idea of a young earth was the default position of the Christian church from inception until the mid-1800s, when the claims of uniformatarianism took hold in geology, arguing that the world was older than 6,000 years. The majority of church fathers and the fathers of modern science believed that the Biblical history was correct. Those that did not accept a 6 day creation thought it was an instant. Few Christians were arguing for millions or billions of years. Those vast ages are the new ideas.
You do realize that science has advanced since the Early Church Fathers, right?
@@spiderdxn2263 Yes, science has advanced. And those who understand science realize that evolution is not really science by a claim about history. I don't believe that history is true. I believe Biblical history is true. Let's talk about it.
So was the belief there is a litteral bowl of water in the sky (Genesis 1:7). There is no bowl of water in the sky. It's not possible to interpret genesis literally today. You basically need to deny reality to do so.
@@plotinus393 Yes you can interpret Genesis historically and literally but first you need to get it clear what Genesis actually teaches. I have never heard of a "literal bowl of water in the sky". That is a weird interpretation.
This means that, if we are to accept these new ideas, the Church believed and taught some very wrong ideas about what a whole lot of Scripture really means, and retained these erroneous ideas for more than 1800 years. Not only that, but these erroneous ideas were also held by Christ and the Apostles. The idea that "from the beginning of creation" (not billions of years later) God made man "male and female" (Mark 10:6) comes from Christ Himself. However, there are plenty of people around today who claim to know more about all this than Christ Himself, or his apostles.
What is the official tradition in St. George hunting dragons? Is that analogous to demons or how are we to understand it?
What a condescending title
I'm a protestant who was raised as a young earth creationist. I don't take a hard stance on the topic anymore but I do lean toward old earth creationism. With that said, even when I was a big young earth creationist I was taken back by their lack of scientific vigor. I'm not trying to bash anyone who is a YEC or any of the scientists who write in their publications (they are certainly smarter than me), but it just seems like they are constantly taking some big leaps of faith or using the flood as a sort of God of the gaps argument. The other thing that always bothered me about most of the young earth crowd was how dogmatic they were about a literal 6 day creation event 10,000ish years ago. Ken Hamm is a good example of someone who borders on saying believing in a young earth is necessary for salvation. I think these people run the risk of adding to salvation, which is something Paul warned the Galations (I think) about sternly.
Sorry Mr Horn, I'm not convinced. Trent, you tend to care what the modern science world and athiest think about you. That's why you Jimmy akin look to science and try to fit your faith into it while people like Marshall and Hall look to their faith first and don't care what anyone thinks about them. I almost lost my faith years ago listening to Trent, Jimmy and bishop barron. The entire church leaned towards what Kolbe Center, hall and marshall believed before the 20th century. I know modernist will say "well they didnt have modern science back then". That itself is such a arrogant comment because what you're saying is modern scientist and athiests know better than the saints and the church fathers.
Well considering the Saints and church fathers aren’t infallible it’s worrying you are treating them as if they are…
@@irishandscottish1829 but athiest scientists are? Funny how Trent and Jimmy can take the word of these anti God scientist as dogma but question young earth creationists. Shameful.
One problem here, Marshal and Hall are Sspx sympathizers, coincidentally also reactionary fundamentalists. Both of them claim that the ordinary rite mass is by design intended to mislead. This makes them schismatic. Furthermore they adopt the Protestant reactionary position on evolution/young earth creation etc. Catholics must reject their errors and join in exonerating them to convert to the truth.
The key difference is that the church does not opine on matters related to observation. The church safeguards *Revelation* and the deductions thereof. It was already taught and understood by Augustine in the 4th century that the two creation accounts in Genesis can’t be interpreted as side-by-side historical accounts because they contradict each other. That squeezes out any interpretation that insists they must be literal in the modern sense. Truth can’t contradict truth, as Aquinas says, so if science presents compelling evidence for the truth of some claim, then that should legitimately cast doubt on an already strained interpretation of scripture (because ALL truth, even scientific truth, comes from God, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life).
Young earth creationism is insanity.
I don’t understand why people think that fossil discoveries only happened in the modern era. Many of the folklore around giants/dragons/dwarves/fantastical creatures came from fossil discoveries that happened before our modern era and became stories people told.
First!!!!
What’s embarrassing is denying the consensus of the fathers and doctors and the fourth lateran council that creation occurred 6000 years ago
Ok, so first off, I’m pretty sure that they had the Septuagint, which would make it roughly 8000 years ago. Also, I’m not sure that, even if this was the correct biblical interpretation, that this means that dinosaurs would be running around and be included in the historical record. Those two points are different arguments entirely.
Oh, so Trent is a young earth creationist and was just correcting his own? My bad.
it's not the consensus of the fathers or of the doctors that the age of the Earth is a matter of divine revelation, or of church teaching. Stop repeating this lie, it just is not true.
Stop repeating the lie that any father or any doctor would have accepted the fact that the Earth is billions of years old, or that man evolved from a sub human primate. Any debate had over the age of the Earth of of creation would have been in the context of thousands, not billions, of years. Ill repeat again at the fourth Lateran council said that God created all “at once,” simul, from the beginning. Billions of years is “at once?”
Stop repeating the lie that the fathers or the doctors of the Church would have accepted that the Earth was billions of years old, or that man evolved from a sub human primate. The Greeks had already hypothesized this and it was roundly rejected. Any debate over the age of the Earth would have occurred in the context of thousands, not billions, of years. The Fourth Lateran Council spoke plainly when it said that God created everything at the beginning of time simul, “at once.”
Trent, I’m for most part with you. But I believe that if you understood young earth creationist you would actually understand why it’s a good way to evangelize. Better than evolution.
Evangelizing with an unbiblical lie is no different than telling ppl to believe in evolution.