I thought Gideon was more coherent in his arguments. Someone posted this and I agree with it - "The traditional Christmas proclamation still prayed at prime for Christmas by those who pray the 1962 office, starts, “in the 5199th year of the world”. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi."
@Samson We are Catholics, the magisterium has spoken and we are free to believe the Creation story OR evolution (with the proviso of God gifting our soul upon conception.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Oh no...Roman Catholic brothers please don't concede, I urge you all to read the documents very carefully & the Popes statements & realize that they NEVER said the evolution theory is true & used ambiguous terms for a specific purpose. Nor did it ever say that it is compatible with Christian doctrines. Please, do it & you will utterly destroy all arguments by heretics like those. Yes, brother, let's tell it like it is, it is absolute blasphemy on the biggest level imagined. I urge you to take it very seriously & not lightly as the heretics convinced you to do - this is what Satan wants, he's very clever & conning
32:46 Where has the Magisterium ever ruled that evolution is the more probable view? Jimmy kept stating this but cited nothing besides JPII non-definitive statements. He also mentioned the Catechism but the catechism never mentions evolution. Jimmy way overstated his case in my opinion. Thanks Suan for hosting this breakdown!
"Ruled" "more probable" You see, Jimmy never said that. Each individual word, when carefully used, is important. You are working with a false dichotomy where either it is accepted or denied. Jimmy presented a nuanced case, not in the realm you expected but something 1 step removed that is highly relevant. Listen carefully to Jimmy's words again and try to spot it. On a side note be careful: Often ppl use many words to sound wise. Watch for that in the thing you pay attention, ppl might be misleading you. But remember, they as well might be unaware they do it.
@@CesarScur Was Jimmy not positing that the Magisterium has, in fact, ruled on this issue (that old age creationism is permitted) and also that the Magisterium seems to be leaning "favorably" towards old age?
@@catholicdisciple3232 ruled? I think that word has a weight to me that is does not have to you. If it was ruled the way you say means that it is definitive. Meaning won't change. Meaning it is right that there is no right in this debate. And that sounds absurd. If by ruled you mean say or tell then the word rule looses all its meaning.
@@CesarScur was Jimmy arguing that the Magisterium has ruled definitively on the notion that Genesis 1 to 11 is not to be taken as scientific or historical fact (but more symbolically)?
I think one of the more important questions Jimmy dodged was "at what point does Genesis become literal". (Or any line of narrative scripture for that matter). This enlightenment dialectic thinking has bifurcated scripture into res extensa and res cogitans. Oddly the faithful now wait for secular science to inform us as to what parts of scripture are purely the mind of God vs what parts were materially actuated according to the Biblical narrative. It's also good to note that the Magisterial fidelity in not requiring assent to certain belief is not the same as saying it's not worth looking into. For instance its not required that Catholics believe in Fatima. Actually, prior to the miracle, it would have been more faithful to the "leanings" of the local magisterium to doubt the probability of Lucia's story. PS.. thank you for doing the debate. You did well and it's nice to have an articulate faithful advocate putting himself out there like you did.
@Prasanth Thomas Revelation isn't historical. It's prophecy. Different categories altogether. The problem with science done since the enlightenment vs science done in Augustine's time is that modern science is opposed to any explanation which does not ultimately rest on naturalistic, materialistic, or reductionist premises. To state it plainly, the philosophy behind modern science is anti-God.
@Prasanth Thomas "The book of Revelation was patterned in the Manner of Genesis" I think that there are parallels or connections is much different than being "patterned after". I always thought Revelations was patterned after Old Testament Eschatology. I appreciate what your doing but I don't think you can project the style of that prophetic work back onto Genesis. As a prophetic work, Revelations is seen through a veil. John is shown Gods design through vision, through dream. Jewish oral tradition held that the Torah was dictated. We don't exactly know if Moses received Genesis along with the law, but it's been treated differently than prophetic texts (other than the foreshadowing that seems to exist in all scripture - Protoevangelium, etc). I don't think Genesis has to be taken exactly literal (I'm o.k with Augustines Rationes Seminales), but I do think that far less liberty can be taken with the creation account than is being proposed by Neo-Darwinian Christian apologists who try to equate original sin with hominids struggling to overcome their vestigial biological imperitives. "Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? And, the term 'reductionistic, materialistic and naturalistic' would appeal to the Sciences even at the time of Augustine." I mean those terms in the strict sense. Absolute reductionism, absolute materialism, etc. John Lennox has done great work on describing the secular material approach to science and draws these distinctions out quite well. Secular science done in this way all ends in absolute determinism and philosophical bankruptcy - Free will is an illusion, we are slaves to our genetics, there is no creator, the universe is an extant remnant of quantum fluctuations in the nothing made possible by a vibrating string multiverse, spectator wave collapse phenomenon means we live in a simulation, blah, blah, blah . Lastly, I'm not suggesting science needs to mention God, but I am saying that the moment you do, you are politely asked to leave. The only correct response to all scientific origins questions is "It was an accident- obviously"
@Prasanth Thomas "Augustine argued that how could there be Days and Nights if there was no sun or moon." Augustine's solution to this quandary was instantaneous creation, but I think his Rationes Seminales can be invoked as an elegant 7 day component. When God created "light" before the Sun & Moon, he actually created the laws of electromagnetism. The "day" only needed a sidereal / solar reference for early humanity. God is outside of time and space and has no need for visual markers (but had already created the essence of a day, prior to the form of the day, in thought). Humanity actually can now count days without light also (and may need to). The prophesied "3 days of darkness" will need to be marked by clocks, not celestial objects. "I think Evolution reached a point of the Homo Sapians where God finally gave man his Image." You're perfectly welcome to think this. I think it's absurd if you really think this evolution happened through a Neo-Darwian mechanism like random mutation / selection. But the Church gives you that freedom and you have plenty of scientific consensus on your side. I just don't think scientific consilience is on your side. "Quantum Mechanics, at any rate, has gone in the Anti-Deterministic Direction, where, as objects get smaller, they are no longer Mechanistic" This is partially true. Yes anti-deterministic in the sense if you wound the universe back to point zero and started over you'd get a totally different outcome. But still deterministic in the sense that in each outcome nothing inside this universe has any say in actually changing it's course. Think of the game Plinko on the Price is Right. Each time the ball is dropped it chooses a different course. But the ball has no power in choosing it's course. "Now, Sir Roger Penrose, a great Physicist, proposed a Mathematical model for a Quantum Mechanical Brain- could explain free will" Penrose is just rehashing the Swerve principle advocated by Epicurus in 300 b.c. (Like Darwin was just rehashing the great chain of being.). Free will is the greatest mystery in humanity - that God created it is the only viable solution. "But Michio Kaku proposed a Hypothesis that God exists" Spinoza's God?! That is hardly God the Father. Kaku is just rehashing Pantheism...... Pantheism, Dualism, New Age-ism, and plenty of other sorts of "divine" meanderings are perfectly acceptable in scientific circles - so long as they stay away from a Personal God who punishes sin. "But, as Ed Feser points out, the so-called 'Fine tuning' and 'Intelligent design' arguements are not very good to prove God's existance" I think the best argument of Gods existence is the human heart and free will. We know in our bones God is there and we know in our heart we are we are truly making our own decisions. "The fool says in is heart - 'There is no God.'" Psalm 14:1
@Prasanth Thomas "but I think his views can be classified as an elegant 7 day component....." Sorry this is not what I said. It's impolite to use quotes if you're paraphrasing; and when you are paraphrasing, the thrust of the original thought should still be preserved. I used the word "invoked". The meaning here is that the idea of Augustine's Rationes Seminales, or rational seeds can be used to craft an elegant solution. I did not try and reclassify Augustine. Please be more careful when restating what I've written. "What do you mean 'its absurd'?" Again you've sort of read around what I've written. The absurdity is in the Neo Darwinian Mechanism. We've seen the equivalent of millions of years of human evolution in test tubes. Yeast cells divide as rapidly as once every 90 minutes. Thats almost 6,000 generations a year (multiply that by every flask and whoa!). Even with applied pressure we have seen very little change in these microorganisms. If in that massive amount of time, millions of years of animal equivalent evolution, we haven't seen even something as simple as a new organelle, how are we expected to believe ALL animals and their systems and complex symbiotic relationships evolved from the first bilateral worm 500 million years ago. The problem of time is something Neo-Darwinism can not surmount. Probabilistic random mutation does not work. Dembski's Specified Complexity does a good job digging into this. Natural selection's strength is not in creative power, it is in selective power. This is simple. It's pure Philosophy. Science has abandoned philosophy and so the sciences dealing with origins have embraced the irrational . "My point here was to just counter your claim that modern Scientists is trying to forcibly remove the mention of God" Yes, the true God. Nobody cares about counterfeits because nobody is personally convicted by counterfeits. So as long as Spinoza's God or Kaku's slightly different Spinoza's God don't condemn people to hell, they are welcome in polite society. "New Agers are hated by Physicists" It's true New Agers are probably the least liked group out of the lot I threw out. But they still arent ostracized like people who advocate ID or Young Earth. I mean you just have to look at a case like Gunter Bechly. He dabbled in mysticism, new ageism, and other forms of deism for years before finally becoming a Catholic and coming out in support of ID. He then lost his long held post at Stuttgart, had his Wikipedia page deleted, and probably has almost all mainstream publishing doors closed. This is not anecdotal, its the norm. While it's true you can be a person of faith and practice science, the moment you publicly state that any of the science you do somehow confirms anything in the bible, well then you are woefully scorned. If you suggest your science points to some other kind of philosophical entanglement, (James Gates - self correcting string theory = simulation) you are met with deference in the best case, annoyance in the worst case, and indifference in the rest.
@Prasanth Thomas You should know that the Church Father interpreted Genesis 1-11 as literal, no exception Also, answer me, do you believe Abraham lived up to 175 years old? Because his story is outside the first eleven chapters of Genesis
I want to thank Gideon for bringing philosophy into the discussion because for the longest time I was only focused on scientific evidence to refute the old earth theory. - In Genesis, God made Adam then DEATH came because of his fall - but an old-earth evolutionist theory would presume that the cycle of DEATH was already existing even before Adam and Eve came into the picture. These 2 statements cannot coexist. Would believing in an old earth theory mean that you are rejecting Genesis, would rejecting Genesis mean that you are rejecting the Word of God?? I'm afraid to answer this question because that would mean that a lot of people are in error.
As a Thomist and follower of the fathers I think the difficulty with Old Earth evolution is it’s impedance on the widely accepted idea of “Essences.” But that being aside, I don’t think “death” is a defeater of evolution. Reason being is the Fathers seem to reject that man and animals had a common lot even prior to the Fall. In Maximus Ambigua 31 (and 42) he states that Man “became like the wild beast” “filling the lower world (beneath them) with those born in the flesh from him to corruption.” When speaking of Paradise, it’s proper to understand that man had the GIFT of Impassability, immortality, etc…not by nature but by the Power of God. It’s easy to miss that Man was not originally formed from within the Garden but rather from the “slime of the earth.” Afterwards, he was lifted up by the Grace of God to Paradise which is ABOVE his abode in which he was made. In Paradise, the Aeon (or Aevum), man experienced the gifts as an overflow of Gods Goodness bestowed upon them. When man disobeyed God, the gifts were severed from the man and woman and they were placed back from where they came. “From dust you are, to dust you shall return.” To redeem man back, Christ who possesses the gifts man had by Grace but that He possesses BY nature (impassability, immortality, etc..), willingly layed those rightful gifts aside, and took on our weakness to reinvest us with those gifts. And even above these, the gift of Eternal Life which is the sight of the Holy Trinity. In short, I think it’s possible to say that “death” entering the world is not speaking of only the death signified by the separation of soul from body. But rather, the death of the man’s intellect severed from the Divine Life, and placing man back into the abode of the “lower” world as Maximus calls it. And since man was the “head” as placed over the earth, it was their death that is said to be a death to all. For since man is “all things” as the Philosopher says it is man’s “death” that is truly “death” to all things. Not that things didn’t die before man, but that man as being the whole that contains all the parts, it is in man in which “all died.”
@Prasanth Thomas Not sure what your supposing I said in my comment above. If you re-read it you will see that I make a distinction between Man and all of the other corporeal beings. I don’t object to pre adam death.
@@MountAthosandAquinas I guess I can't still get over the fact that death would exist Pre-fall, even if it's just in the animal kingdom... In the Bible DEATH is associated with: destruction, decay, suffering, famine, disease, hunger, sin, poison, conflict/war, old age, eternal damnation, corruption, unclean. (take note that the Holy Spirit is the divine author of the Bible. So that's how God sees death) Would a loving and merciful God allow such a dreadful thing in his perfect kingdom? In Matthew 10:29 & Matthew 6:26 God shows his care to even birds. So I doubt that he would allow cruelty to animals. ------ @Prasanth Thomas even though I'm a meat-eater, I subscribe to the belief that pre-fall man and animals were eating only produce from plants. .... in the future paradise we will not need to kill to be nourished. Isaiah 11:6
Very difficult to explain without giving a deeper explanation of the Metaphysics of reality. In short, we have to remember that Adam and Eve were placed between eternity and time in Paradise. If you think that through for a while you may answer your own questions.
Sungenis is a dangerous crackpot spreading pseudo-science and confusion among faithful catholics, there is no good reason to give him any attention whatsoever
@Prasanth Thomas evidently you haven’t studied his work enough. Why don’t you try reading his works ‘The Immutable God Who Can Change His Mind: The Impassible God Who Can Show Emotion’ and ‘Galileo Was Wrong’.
Yeah, very lazy showing from Jimmy. He literally just tried to shame Gideon out of it with a bunch of insults and way overblown appeals to papal speeches
I feel like that's a super uncharitable take. Whether or not Jimmy was ultimately wrong, to act like he wasnt taking it seriously or was making bad faith arguments is really reading your bias into it.
It seems to be that, in order for the fathers’ morally unanimity to be an infallible sign that it is an article of faith, the fathers themselves must visibly indicate that that notion that they’re in agreement on is indeed an article of faith. The fact that Saint Justin Martyr’s chiliasm was morally unanimous during his time wasn’t sufficient, due to the fact that he himself indicated that this notion was a point of dispute, instead of it being an undoubted de fide proposition. Doronzo, the last of the manualists, apparently indicated that this must be the case.
Could someone provide me with the top 3 or 4 YEC scholars? After watching the debate and now this review, my interest is piqued. Thank you and God bless.
Dr John Sanford, Dr John Baumgardner, Dr Todd Wood, Dr Kurt Wise. Also comb through the Proslogion blog by Dr. Jay Wile for lots of Young Earth info presented by a PHD with a Nuclear Chemistry degree. For anti-Darwinian scholars, anyone at the Discovery institute is well credentialed.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 How compelling do you find Sanford's Mendel's accountant / genetic entropy argument in the schema of YE arguments? For me it has to be near the top.
@@JohnBoyX570 I’m not familiar with it. Overall, I’m nit that interested in argument *against* evolution. I’m far more interested in models that explain the data from a young earth perspective.
I definitely feel that Gideon Lazar uses reason and logic that is congruent with objective reality and science far more consistently than Aiken ever did. I liked Aiken in some debates but the more I watched him the more skeptical and suspicious I became as to who or what he really represents. For example, he gets very excited talking about the possibility of aliens and totally MOCKS christians who think some "alien" phenomena may be demonic. He also downplays the Shroud of Turin saying the carbon dating calls the relic into question which is extremely misleading to say as the carbon dating done in 1988 was COMPLETELY DEBUNKED. He promised to do a video on the Shroud of Turin in 2021 but still nothing which I find very strange - too much faith affirming evidence for Aiken to handle (??) Beware of false YT Catholic scholars!!
So one of Gideons huge problems was his main argument is structured on adherence to the church fathers when they’re unanimous. It seems to me that he means even if the magisterium has given you permission not to. Then jimmy pointed out that the fathers were unanimously geocentric based on scriptures’ details of the earth and its position in the center. Gideon then said I haven’t made my mind up about that. And proceeded to act like it’s ok to make up your mind on geocentrism but be forced to follow what the fathers say on young earth. Hmmm seems a bit hypocritical. Maybe the fathers would have a different opinion if they were given the evidence we have now. It’s really arrogant to say none of that evidence would impact their thinking.
@@timboslice980 Arcanum, Leo XIII “only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep”
@@timboslice980 Arcanum “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
Does YEC imply a young universe? Jimmy asked about stars Gideon on stars dating 188 million years ago. Can YEC respond to that saying the universe can be old but the earth young as an explanation?
Depends I guess on the person but from my understanding, under Einsteins General Relativity, the universe is expanding 4 times the speed of light. YECs would believe that the speed of light is no limit at all but moves faster on the outskirts of the universe. If you would like you should watch the video on Militant Thomist's channel where Dr Sungenis discussed his views with Gideon relating to this.
@Prasanth Thomas if the universe revolves around the earth it means the earth is the center of the universe. Heliocentrism still has a center of the universe, the fictional place where the big bang began to which the universe revolves around. Both theories place that center as the starting or origin of the universe
@Prasanth Thomas cen·trif·u·gal force cause all the planets, solar systems, stars, galaxies, etc to move. Hence, the universe, centrifugal force included, is in motion whilst the earth is stable and doesn't move. Hence the universe moves while the earth doesn't. This would make the universe dependent on the earth for their position and form, hence the universe did not exist before the earth
Kent uses an array of bad arguments and has a poor understanding of evolution. That said he has a (very) few good arguments and a lot of great rhetoric, which explains the popularity. But the science is very bad. He talks about it some after 1:32:00
From what I understand Stephen Meyer, Casey Luskin, Douglas Axe and Hugh Ross are creationists but from an old earth perspective. At present I lean toward their view point. I’d be interested to hear Lazar’s opinion about that and whether he thinks it has any merit or not, especially if one places humanity within the biblical timeframe,ie starting with Adam and Eve formed in Eden from a YEC dating. I think it may also be called progressive creationism.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 do you mean problems like death in the animal kingdom before the fall? Is there an article you can recommend that addresses this ie OEC?
@@peter_hobbs Listen to my opening statement in the debate. I lay out probably around 2 dozen or so problems with an old earth. Jimmy addressed almost none of them.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 I haven’t finished the video yet, but quickly at 1:16:00 Jimmy says the magisterium has been supportive of evolution, but qualifies it “of some form”. Yeah that particular form would be microevolution, which modern secular science rarely distinguishes from macro. No one, not even YEC, disputes Microevolution. That would have been my reply. Frustrating how Jimmy can make necessary distinctions on so many issues but not this one. I’ve still got more of the debate to go but I’ve not been persuasively dissuaded against an old universe as yet though.
I was fascinated to hear Gideon's views in the debate and deeply wish they were true. However, there is one significant issue that, if left unaddressed, is an insurmountable barrier: 1. The Church has stated that this issue is not one concerning faith or morals. Thus, both options are valid to hold. Consensus from the Church Fathers on this issue does not equate with a definitive (authoritative) teaching. If it were, then I agree with Gideon's philosophical arguments and skepticism toward the 'popular' science. But, until we know that we must interpret the science through such theology, he seems to be, as Jimmy stated, simply locking himself in an 'impossible to refute' position.
@YAJUN YUAN so do you think that the what the Church Father's declared on this was regarding faith and morals? If that is true, why hasn't the Magisterium stated this?
Stop saying “the Church” when you mean “20th century popes”. The Church spoke on this through writing Scripture, and through tradition, a powerful element of which is the consensus of the Fathers.
Kent Hovind still has a special place in my heart due to his unwavering commitment to preaching young earth creationism in public venues. The man has debated several people, we need to be more loving when discussing him.
I'd love to hear more discussion on the origins of ideas like an old(billions of years) earth/universe and the progression of simple life towards complexity. From my studies it seems they come from ancient pagan cultures that attributed all their knowledge to the 'gods' that taught them. I realize that people shy away from discussing the supernatural but honestly I think that is a mistake. Satan and his cohort of fallen angels have been laying the groundwork of opposition to God and his plan for humanity since the garden, and unfortunately they are much smarter than we are(at least without the aid of the Holy Spirit). There's much more I want to say but I've already re-written this comment ~10 times and still don't feel that I've adequately expressed myself. 😅 But short of writing a super long comment this will have to suffice for now.
Gideon lost this debate for sure… ignoring vaaaaaast quantities of evidence. Remember: “all truth is God’s truth” and from the arguments. Seems like Gideon thinks only his narrow interpretations of scripture (even if shared by the fathers - it’s still narrow) are God’s thruth; which is wrong.
Distant starlight is not a problem when you have a God of miracles, We Believe Christ rose from the dead, there is no way science can explain this. God on the fourth day did what we look at now as taking billions of years Thank you for taking on modernism God bless.
Gideon, you are strawmaning Jimmy's argument. I'm sure it is not on purpose. It is not that the question is not open according to the Magisterium, it is indeed a open mater although inclined to the natural observation as also brought up by Jimmy. But the fact that you are not in the necessary scholar position to question the Magisterium inclination. His argument is that it is not prudent to reject your Father and Mother (Pope and Church) just because you think you are more capable of interpreting the opinion that the past had on this of your opinion on some science wish you are no versed in. Remember? Not even the geologists you sited have the proper background to conclude anything besides the cold scientific observation.
The magesterium has also told me to follow the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. We don’t have to blindly follow every statement that comes out of Rome. That’s not how theology was ever done among the Father, scholastics, or manualists, I’m just trying to practice theology in the way the Doctors of the Church did. Has the Church changed its method of doing theology so now we simply just listen to the magesterium and not scripture or tradition?
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Saint Padre Pio used asked his superior if he could dress his coat when he was cold. Yes, we don't have to follow everything. But a prudent person looking to learn how to follow God's law, which are much more difficult, then we ought to start from our spiritual fathers. If all patristic fathers agreed something, but the Magisterium says otherwise you ought to follow the Magisterium.
@@catholicdisciple3232 I'm voicing Jimmy's argument: unless you are in a position to talk about it (having PhD in all relevant areas or equivalent) you should refer to the to the Magisterium, which seldom affirms, but recognise that there are substantial evidence for it.
@YAJUN YUAN “Arcus” “Arktos” “Arca” Latin, Greek, Egyptian and also Sanskrit etymologies all referring to ellipses....referring to Christ and also the Theotokos. A strict modern language definition without historical and theological context would render your grammar naziism valid.
@YAJUN YUAN she is the second Eve, the faithful and obedient New Arc of the Covenant, contained G-d and did not die, ellipsing God to Man and Man to God. Arc
@Samson people like these are scary. If they can believe something as ridiculous as this they can believe anything. Becoming a Catholic should make you wiser not the other way around. You shouldn’t be throwing reason and science away just because you became Catholic.
@@Veritas463 If you're Catholic you should be very skeptical about modern science. It's an atheist materialist philosophy funded by people who are not Christian and who routinely use it to discredit your faith. If you go by the science then you should stop believing in the Resurrection and the Trinity and everything else in the deposit of faith.
@Samson Someone told me your mom was so lazy she wouldn’t even stop the train to abort your random fetal existential arse. I told them I don’t listen to gossip but it makes sense.
I am more convinced earth is flat, does not move or travell and it is not much older than 7500 or 8000 years. Also everyone cames from one couple of human beings Adam and Eva.
Everything is symbolic. There is no such thing as literal or at least not when it comes to communicating truth. The language of all creation is symbolic that's how we recognize patterns. That's how we ascribe meaning. That's how the ancients understood things unfortunately we have moved from a symbolic understanding of the world to a purely materialistic scientism. If you care to read the scriptures that way you miss the point.
This sounds Jonathan Pageau’s line of thinking. I actually used to believe that until I started to read more of the Church Fathers myself. St Augustine in the City of God actually calculates the size of the ark and calculates the ages of the early people in genealogies in Genesis. Church Fathers teach the importance of understanding scriptures from a literal/historical standpoint and from a symbolic one. Also I realized that Christianity is a historical religion. We cannot simply affirm the story of Christ as being symbolically true but not historically true. Secular folks like Jordan Peterson will say they believe in Christ metaphorically but cannot believe in His physical resurrection.
This could be said of almost any theological issue. Knowledge is good for its own sake. Not everything is a matter of salvation. God wants us to search out the goodness of the universe He created.
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Gideon brother, don't concede on that either - the Church fathers never contradicted each others & are infallible in their teachings. Even in the case of premillenialism, they said themselves it was speculation that maybe it's the case & that they live it to the judgment of the Church, which later concluded by a council under the Holy Spirit. The issue with the Angels, i already harmonized what St. Avgustinus actually said with the true traditional view of the Church fathers. Also even the Majesterium never said that evolution is true, that's false & another misunderstanding of the nuisances of what the Popes said. I urge you Roman Catholics to not concede to APPARENT contradictions or deviations & learn how to HARMONIZE everything in unity.
I thought Gideon was more coherent in his arguments. Someone posted this and I agree with it - "The traditional Christmas proclamation still prayed at prime for Christmas by those who pray the 1962 office, starts, “in the 5199th year of the world”. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi."
@Samson We are Catholics, the magisterium has spoken and we are free to believe the Creation story OR evolution (with the proviso of God gifting our soul upon conception.
@Samson how the spam filter not get you
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Oh no...Roman Catholic brothers please don't concede, I urge you all to read the documents very carefully & the Popes statements & realize that they NEVER said the evolution theory is true & used ambiguous terms for a specific purpose. Nor did it ever say that it is compatible with Christian doctrines. Please, do it & you will utterly destroy all arguments by heretics like those. Yes, brother, let's tell it like it is, it is absolute blasphemy on the biggest level imagined. I urge you to take it very seriously & not lightly as the heretics convinced you to do - this is what Satan wants, he's very clever & conning
32:46 Where has the Magisterium ever ruled that evolution is the more probable view?
Jimmy kept stating this but cited nothing besides JPII non-definitive statements. He also mentioned the Catechism but the catechism never mentions evolution. Jimmy way overstated his case in my opinion.
Thanks Suan for hosting this breakdown!
"Ruled" "more probable"
You see, Jimmy never said that. Each individual word, when carefully used, is important. You are working with a false dichotomy where either it is accepted or denied. Jimmy presented a nuanced case, not in the realm you expected but something 1 step removed that is highly relevant. Listen carefully to Jimmy's words again and try to spot it.
On a side note be careful: Often ppl use many words to sound wise. Watch for that in the thing you pay attention, ppl might be misleading you. But remember, they as well might be unaware they do it.
@@CesarScur Was Jimmy not positing that the Magisterium has, in fact, ruled on this issue (that old age creationism is permitted) and also that the Magisterium seems to be leaning "favorably" towards old age?
@@catholicdisciple3232 ruled? I think that word has a weight to me that is does not have to you. If it was ruled the way you say means that it is definitive. Meaning won't change. Meaning it is right that there is no right in this debate. And that sounds absurd.
If by ruled you mean say or tell then the word rule looses all its meaning.
@@CesarScur was Jimmy arguing that the Magisterium has ruled definitively on the notion that Genesis 1 to 11 is not to be taken as scientific or historical fact (but more symbolically)?
@@catholicdisciple3232 has someone say that?
I think one of the more important questions Jimmy dodged was "at what point does Genesis become literal". (Or any line of narrative scripture for that matter). This enlightenment dialectic thinking has bifurcated scripture into res extensa and res cogitans. Oddly the faithful now wait for secular science to inform us as to what parts of scripture are purely the mind of God vs what parts were materially actuated according to the Biblical narrative.
It's also good to note that the Magisterial fidelity in not requiring assent to certain belief is not the same as saying it's not worth looking into. For instance its not required that Catholics believe in Fatima. Actually, prior to the miracle, it would have been more faithful to the "leanings" of the local magisterium to doubt the probability of Lucia's story.
PS.. thank you for doing the debate. You did well and it's nice to have an articulate faithful advocate putting himself out there like you did.
@Prasanth Thomas Revelation isn't historical. It's prophecy. Different categories altogether. The problem with science done since the enlightenment vs science done in Augustine's time is that modern science is opposed to any explanation which does not ultimately rest on naturalistic, materialistic, or reductionist premises. To state it plainly, the philosophy behind modern science is anti-God.
@Prasanth Thomas "The book of Revelation was patterned in the Manner of Genesis" I think that there are parallels or connections is much different than being "patterned after". I always thought Revelations was patterned after Old Testament Eschatology. I appreciate what your doing but I don't think you can project the style of that prophetic work back onto Genesis. As a prophetic work, Revelations is seen through a veil. John is shown Gods design through vision, through dream. Jewish oral tradition held that the Torah was dictated. We don't exactly know if Moses received Genesis along with the law, but it's been treated differently than prophetic texts (other than the foreshadowing that seems to exist in all scripture - Protoevangelium, etc). I don't think Genesis has to be taken exactly literal (I'm o.k with Augustines Rationes Seminales), but I do think that far less liberty can be taken with the creation account than is being proposed by Neo-Darwinian Christian apologists who try to equate original sin with hominids struggling to overcome their vestigial biological imperitives. "Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? And, the term 'reductionistic, materialistic and naturalistic' would appeal to the Sciences even at the time of Augustine." I mean those terms in the strict sense. Absolute reductionism, absolute materialism, etc. John Lennox has done great work on describing the secular material approach to science and draws these distinctions out quite well. Secular science done in this way all ends in absolute determinism and philosophical bankruptcy - Free will is an illusion, we are slaves to our genetics, there is no creator, the universe is an extant remnant of quantum fluctuations in the nothing made possible by a vibrating string multiverse, spectator wave collapse phenomenon means we live in a simulation, blah, blah, blah . Lastly, I'm not suggesting science needs to mention God, but I am saying that the moment you do, you are politely asked to leave. The only correct response to all scientific origins questions is "It was an accident- obviously"
@Prasanth Thomas "Augustine argued that how could there be Days and Nights if there was no sun or moon." Augustine's solution to this quandary was instantaneous creation, but I think his Rationes Seminales can be invoked as an elegant 7 day component. When God created "light" before the Sun & Moon, he actually created the laws of electromagnetism. The "day" only needed a sidereal / solar reference for early humanity. God is outside of time and space and has no need for visual markers (but had already created the essence of a day, prior to the form of the day, in thought). Humanity actually can now count days without light also (and may need to). The prophesied "3 days of darkness" will need to be marked by clocks, not celestial objects. "I think Evolution reached a point of the Homo Sapians where God finally gave man his Image." You're perfectly welcome to think this. I think it's absurd if you really think this evolution happened through a Neo-Darwian mechanism like random mutation / selection. But the Church gives you that freedom and you have plenty of scientific consensus on your side. I just don't think scientific consilience is on your side. "Quantum Mechanics, at any rate, has gone in the Anti-Deterministic Direction, where, as objects get smaller, they are no longer Mechanistic" This is partially true. Yes anti-deterministic in the sense if you wound the universe back to point zero and started over you'd get a totally different outcome. But still deterministic in the sense that in each outcome nothing inside this universe has any say in actually changing it's course. Think of the game Plinko on the Price is Right. Each time the ball is dropped it chooses a different course. But the ball has no power in choosing it's course. "Now, Sir Roger Penrose, a great Physicist, proposed a Mathematical model for a Quantum Mechanical Brain- could explain free will" Penrose is just rehashing the Swerve principle advocated by Epicurus in 300 b.c. (Like Darwin was just rehashing the great chain of being.). Free will is the greatest mystery in humanity - that God created it is the only viable solution. "But Michio Kaku proposed a Hypothesis that God exists" Spinoza's God?! That is hardly God the Father. Kaku is just rehashing Pantheism...... Pantheism, Dualism, New Age-ism, and plenty of other sorts of "divine" meanderings are perfectly acceptable in scientific circles - so long as they stay away from a Personal God who punishes sin. "But, as Ed Feser points out, the so-called 'Fine tuning' and 'Intelligent design' arguements are not very good to prove God's existance" I think the best argument of Gods existence is the human heart and free will. We know in our bones God is there and we know in our heart we are we are truly making our own decisions. "The fool says in is heart - 'There is no God.'" Psalm 14:1
@Prasanth Thomas "but I think his views can be classified as an elegant 7 day component....." Sorry this is not what I said. It's impolite to use quotes if you're paraphrasing; and when you are paraphrasing, the thrust of the original thought should still be preserved. I used the word "invoked". The meaning here is that the idea of Augustine's Rationes Seminales, or rational seeds can be used to craft an elegant solution. I did not try and reclassify Augustine. Please be more careful when restating what I've written. "What do you mean 'its absurd'?" Again you've sort of read around what I've written. The absurdity is in the Neo Darwinian Mechanism. We've seen the equivalent of millions of years of human evolution in test tubes. Yeast cells divide as rapidly as once every 90 minutes. Thats almost 6,000 generations a year (multiply that by every flask and whoa!). Even with applied pressure we have seen very little change in these microorganisms. If in that massive amount of time, millions of years of animal equivalent evolution, we haven't seen even something as simple as a new organelle, how are we expected to believe ALL animals and their systems and complex symbiotic relationships evolved from the first bilateral worm 500 million years ago. The problem of time is something Neo-Darwinism can not surmount. Probabilistic random mutation does not work. Dembski's Specified Complexity does a good job digging into this. Natural selection's strength is not in creative power, it is in selective power. This is simple. It's pure Philosophy. Science has abandoned philosophy and so the sciences dealing with origins have embraced the irrational . "My point here was to just counter your claim that modern Scientists is trying to forcibly remove the mention of God" Yes, the true God. Nobody cares about counterfeits because nobody is personally convicted by counterfeits. So as long as Spinoza's God or Kaku's slightly different Spinoza's God don't condemn people to hell, they are welcome in polite society. "New Agers are hated by Physicists" It's true New Agers are probably the least liked group out of the lot I threw out. But they still arent ostracized like people who advocate ID or Young Earth. I mean you just have to look at a case like Gunter Bechly. He dabbled in mysticism, new ageism, and other forms of deism for years before finally becoming a Catholic and coming out in support of ID. He then lost his long held post at Stuttgart, had his Wikipedia page deleted, and probably has almost all mainstream publishing doors closed. This is not anecdotal, its the norm. While it's true you can be a person of faith and practice science, the moment you publicly state that any of the science you do somehow confirms anything in the bible, well then you are woefully scorned. If you suggest your science points to some other kind of philosophical entanglement, (James Gates - self correcting string theory = simulation) you are met with deference in the best case, annoyance in the worst case, and indifference in the rest.
@Prasanth Thomas You should know that the Church Father interpreted Genesis 1-11 as literal, no exception
Also, answer me, do you believe Abraham lived up to 175 years old? Because his story is outside the first eleven chapters of Genesis
I want to thank Gideon for bringing philosophy into the discussion because for the longest time I was only focused on scientific evidence to refute the old earth theory.
- In Genesis, God made Adam then DEATH came because of his fall
- but an old-earth evolutionist theory would presume that the cycle of DEATH was already existing even before Adam and Eve came into the picture.
These 2 statements cannot coexist. Would believing in an old earth theory mean that you are rejecting Genesis, would rejecting Genesis mean that you are rejecting the Word of God??
I'm afraid to answer this question because that would mean that a lot of people are in error.
As a Thomist and follower of the fathers I think the difficulty with Old Earth evolution is it’s impedance on the widely accepted idea of “Essences.”
But that being aside, I don’t think “death” is a defeater of evolution. Reason being is the Fathers seem to reject that man and animals had a common lot even prior to the Fall.
In Maximus Ambigua 31 (and 42) he states that Man “became like the wild beast” “filling the lower world (beneath them) with those born in the flesh from him to corruption.”
When speaking of Paradise, it’s proper to understand that man had the GIFT of Impassability, immortality, etc…not by nature but by the Power of God. It’s easy to miss that Man was not originally formed from within the Garden but rather from the “slime of the earth.” Afterwards, he was lifted up by the Grace of God to Paradise which is ABOVE his abode in which he was made.
In Paradise, the Aeon (or Aevum), man experienced the gifts as an overflow of Gods Goodness bestowed upon them. When man disobeyed God, the gifts were severed from the man and woman and they were placed back from where they came. “From dust you are, to dust you shall return.”
To redeem man back, Christ who possesses the gifts man had by Grace but that He possesses BY nature (impassability, immortality, etc..), willingly layed those rightful gifts aside, and took on our weakness to reinvest us with those gifts. And even above these, the gift of Eternal Life which is the sight of the Holy Trinity.
In short, I think it’s possible to say that “death” entering the world is not speaking of only the death signified by the separation of soul from body. But rather, the death of the man’s intellect severed from the Divine Life, and placing man back into the abode of the “lower” world as Maximus calls it. And since man was the “head” as placed over the earth, it was their death that is said to be a death to all. For since man is “all things” as the Philosopher says it is man’s “death” that is truly “death” to all things. Not that things didn’t die before man, but that man as being the whole that contains all the parts, it is in man in which “all died.”
@Prasanth Thomas Good point. The risen Christ didn’t ask to eat something like “bread” which he could have. Instead He chose to eat an animal.
@Prasanth Thomas Not sure what your supposing I said in my comment above. If you re-read it you will see that I make a distinction between Man and all of the other corporeal beings. I don’t object to pre adam death.
@@MountAthosandAquinas I guess I can't still get over the fact that death would exist Pre-fall, even if it's just in the animal kingdom...
In the Bible DEATH is associated with: destruction, decay, suffering, famine, disease, hunger, sin, poison, conflict/war, old age, eternal damnation, corruption, unclean. (take note that the Holy Spirit is the divine author of the Bible. So that's how God sees death)
Would a loving and merciful God allow such a dreadful thing in his perfect kingdom? In Matthew 10:29 & Matthew 6:26 God shows his care to even birds. So I doubt that he would allow cruelty to animals.
------
@Prasanth Thomas even though I'm a meat-eater, I subscribe to the belief that pre-fall man and animals were eating only produce from plants. .... in the future paradise we will not need to kill to be nourished. Isaiah 11:6
Very difficult to explain without giving a deeper explanation of the Metaphysics of reality. In short, we have to remember that Adam and Eve were placed between eternity and time in Paradise. If you think that through for a while you may answer your own questions.
Suan, you should do a show with Robert Sungenis on Geocentrism and also his very short but fascinating book called ‘First Four Days Of Creation’
I’ve suggested he bring Sungenis on before but didn’t get a response 🤷🏻♂️
Sungenis is a dangerous crackpot spreading pseudo-science and confusion among faithful catholics, there is no good reason to give him any attention whatsoever
@Prasanth Thomas crackpot? Spoiling? How? What’s your basis?
@Prasanth Thomas evidently you haven’t studied his work enough. Why don’t you try reading his works ‘The Immutable God Who Can Change His Mind: The Impassible God Who Can Show Emotion’ and ‘Galileo Was Wrong’.
@Prasanth Thomas so you read his book ‘Immutable God Who Can Change His Mind’?
I don't think Jimmy took the debate seriously and didn't properly prepare
Yeah, very lazy showing from Jimmy. He literally just tried to shame Gideon out of it with a bunch of insults and way overblown appeals to papal speeches
I feel like that's a super uncharitable take. Whether or not Jimmy was ultimately wrong, to act like he wasnt taking it seriously or was making bad faith arguments is really reading your bias into it.
@@NeonShadowsxBecause he's a son of Satan & in my opinion the biggest heretic of our time
It seems to be that, in order for the fathers’ morally unanimity to be an infallible sign that it is an article of faith, the fathers themselves must visibly indicate that that notion that they’re in agreement on is indeed an article of faith. The fact that Saint Justin Martyr’s chiliasm was morally unanimous during his time wasn’t sufficient, due to the fact that he himself indicated that this notion was a point of dispute, instead of it being an undoubted de fide proposition. Doronzo, the last of the manualists, apparently indicated that this must be the case.
@YAJUN YUAN Even more if you include all Jewish history - about 5000 at least
Could someone provide me with the top 3 or 4 YEC scholars? After watching the debate and now this review, my interest is piqued. Thank you and God bless.
Dr John Sanford, Dr John Baumgardner, Dr Todd Wood, Dr Kurt Wise. Also comb through the Proslogion blog by Dr. Jay Wile for lots of Young Earth info presented by a PHD with a Nuclear Chemistry degree.
For anti-Darwinian scholars, anyone at the Discovery institute is well credentialed.
@YAJUN YUAN Fixed it! Was getting late and I was going off memory lol
Todd Wood, Kurt Wise, Leonard Brand, Andrew Snelling
Pretty much anyone featured in the doc “Is Genesis History?” is good
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 How compelling do you find Sanford's Mendel's accountant / genetic entropy argument in the schema of YE arguments? For me it has to be near the top.
@@JohnBoyX570 I’m not familiar with it.
Overall, I’m nit that interested in argument *against* evolution. I’m far more interested in models that explain the data from a young earth perspective.
I knew Militant Thomist was based but this is very based!
Thank you, king!
I definitely feel that Gideon Lazar uses reason and logic that is congruent with objective reality and science far more consistently than Aiken ever did. I liked Aiken in some debates but the more I watched him the more skeptical and suspicious I became as to who or what he really represents. For example, he gets very excited talking about the possibility of aliens and totally MOCKS christians who think some "alien" phenomena may be demonic. He also downplays the Shroud of Turin saying the carbon dating calls the relic into question which is extremely misleading to say as the carbon dating done in 1988 was COMPLETELY DEBUNKED. He promised to do a video on the Shroud of Turin in 2021 but still nothing which I find very strange - too much faith affirming evidence for Aiken to handle (??) Beware of false YT Catholic scholars!!
You summed that up really well!! Nice username lol@ExtraEcclesiamNullaSalus
So one of Gideons huge problems was his main argument is structured on adherence to the church fathers when they’re unanimous. It seems to me that he means even if the magisterium has given you permission not to. Then jimmy pointed out that the fathers were unanimously geocentric based on scriptures’ details of the earth and its position in the center. Gideon then said I haven’t made my mind up about that. And proceeded to act like it’s ok to make up your mind on geocentrism but be forced to follow what the fathers say on young earth. Hmmm seems a bit hypocritical. Maybe the fathers would have a different opinion if they were given the evidence we have now. It’s really arrogant to say none of that evidence would impact their thinking.
Where does the magisterium declare that you can believe in evolution?
@ Jimmy explained it in the debate. Where does it say we cant?
@@timboslice980 Arcanum, Leo XIII “only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep”
@@timboslice980 Arcanum “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
It seems like the Church fathers are much stronger when addressing open and ambiguous NT issues than the beginning of the Old Testament.
Thanks!
Does YEC imply a young universe? Jimmy asked about stars Gideon on stars dating 188 million years ago. Can YEC respond to that saying the universe can be old but the earth young as an explanation?
Depends I guess on the person but from my understanding, under Einsteins General Relativity, the universe is expanding 4 times the speed of light. YECs would believe that the speed of light is no limit at all but moves faster on the outskirts of the universe. If you would like you should watch the video on Militant Thomist's channel where Dr Sungenis discussed his views with Gideon relating to this.
@Prasanth Thomas The universe existed devoid of life? Your giving a heliocentric model and not a geocentric one
@Prasanth Thomas devoid of light* my bad. But yes, you just implied heliocentrism by saying the universe existed before the earth
@Prasanth Thomas if the universe revolves around the earth it means the earth is the center of the universe. Heliocentrism still has a center of the universe, the fictional place where the big bang began to which the universe revolves around. Both theories place that center as the starting or origin of the universe
@Prasanth Thomas cen·trif·u·gal force cause all the planets, solar systems, stars, galaxies, etc to move. Hence, the universe, centrifugal force included, is in motion whilst the earth is stable and doesn't move. Hence the universe moves while the earth doesn't. This would make the universe dependent on the earth for their position and form, hence the universe did not exist before the earth
Gideon, I would love to read or hear your specific analysis of Kent Hovind.
Kent uses an array of bad arguments and has a poor understanding of evolution. That said he has a (very) few good arguments and a lot of great rhetoric, which explains the popularity. But the science is very bad. He talks about it some after 1:32:00
From what I understand Stephen Meyer, Casey Luskin, Douglas Axe and Hugh Ross are creationists but from an old earth perspective. At present I lean toward their view point. I’d be interested to hear Lazar’s opinion about that and whether he thinks it has any merit or not, especially if one places humanity within the biblical timeframe,ie starting with Adam and Eve formed in Eden from a YEC dating. I think it may also be called progressive creationism.
I think they raise good scientific questions, but they still don’t solve the problems with an old earth.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 do you mean problems like death in the animal kingdom before the fall? Is there an article you can recommend that addresses this ie OEC?
@@peter_hobbs Listen to my opening statement in the debate. I lay out probably around 2 dozen or so problems with an old earth. Jimmy addressed almost none of them.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 will do. I hadn’t watched it yet.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 I haven’t finished the video yet, but quickly at 1:16:00 Jimmy says the magisterium has been supportive of evolution, but qualifies it “of some form”. Yeah that particular form would be microevolution, which modern secular science rarely distinguishes from macro. No one, not even YEC, disputes Microevolution. That would have been my reply. Frustrating how Jimmy can make necessary distinctions on so many issues but not this one. I’ve still got more of the debate to go but I’ve not been persuasively dissuaded against an old universe as yet though.
Has Gideon done a podcast on Duns scotus?
I was fascinated to hear Gideon's views in the debate and deeply wish they were true. However, there is one significant issue that, if left unaddressed, is an insurmountable barrier:
1. The Church has stated that this issue is not one concerning faith or morals. Thus, both options are valid to hold. Consensus from the Church Fathers on this issue does not equate with a definitive (authoritative) teaching.
If it were, then I agree with Gideon's philosophical arguments and skepticism toward the 'popular' science. But, until we know that we must interpret the science through such theology, he seems to be, as Jimmy stated, simply locking himself in an 'impossible to refute' position.
@YAJUN YUAN so do you think that the what the Church Father's declared on this was regarding faith and morals? If that is true, why hasn't the Magisterium stated this?
Consensus from the Fathers *is* an authoritative teaching
Stop saying “the Church” when you mean “20th century popes”. The Church spoke on this through writing Scripture, and through tradition, a powerful element of which is the consensus of the Fathers.
Not an issue at all, either you are a Catholic, someone who interprets data with a Catholic interpretative framework, or you are not.
@@NeonShadowsx Exactly, Jimmy is dishonest.
Kent Hovind still has a special place in my heart due to his unwavering commitment to preaching young earth creationism in public venues. The man has debated several people, we need to be more loving when discussing him.
Nah. He’s a clown and a domestic abuser
I'd love to hear more discussion on the origins of ideas like an old(billions of years) earth/universe and the progression of simple life towards complexity. From my studies it seems they come from ancient pagan cultures that attributed all their knowledge to the 'gods' that taught them.
I realize that people shy away from discussing the supernatural but honestly I think that is a mistake. Satan and his cohort of fallen angels have been laying the groundwork of opposition to God and his plan for humanity since the garden, and unfortunately they are much smarter than we are(at least without the aid of the Holy Spirit).
There's much more I want to say but I've already re-written this comment ~10 times and still don't feel that I've adequately expressed myself. 😅 But short of writing a super long comment this will have to suffice for now.
Theistic Evolution is like Deism
Gideon lost this debate for sure… ignoring vaaaaaast quantities of evidence. Remember: “all truth is God’s truth” and from the arguments. Seems like Gideon thinks only his narrow interpretations of scripture (even if shared by the fathers - it’s still narrow) are God’s thruth; which is wrong.
Distant starlight is not a problem when you have a God of miracles, We Believe Christ rose from the dead, there is no way science can explain this. God on the fourth day did what we look at now as taking billions of years Thank you for taking on modernism God bless.
That seems like some sort of excuse around the problem
30 seconds in and Suan ruined his whole career 😁😁😁
Check Militant Thomist who had Gideon and Sungenis on. Was very interesting. All of them are pariahs now 😂
Gideon, you are strawmaning Jimmy's argument. I'm sure it is not on purpose. It is not that the question is not open according to the Magisterium, it is indeed a open mater although inclined to the natural observation as also brought up by Jimmy. But the fact that you are not in the necessary scholar position to question the Magisterium inclination. His argument is that it is not prudent to reject your Father and Mother (Pope and Church) just because you think you are more capable of interpreting the opinion that the past had on this of your opinion on some science wish you are no versed in. Remember? Not even the geologists you sited have the proper background to conclude anything besides the cold scientific observation.
The magesterium has also told me to follow the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. We don’t have to blindly follow every statement that comes out of Rome. That’s not how theology was ever done among the Father, scholastics, or manualists, I’m just trying to practice theology in the way the Doctors of the Church did. Has the Church changed its method of doing theology so now we simply just listen to the magesterium and not scripture or tradition?
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Saint Padre Pio used asked his superior if he could dress his coat when he was cold. Yes, we don't have to follow everything. But a prudent person looking to learn how to follow God's law, which are much more difficult, then we ought to start from our spiritual fathers. If all patristic fathers agreed something, but the Magisterium says otherwise you ought to follow the Magisterium.
Besides you are not answering the point but changing the subject. That is not what the philosophy does
@@CesarScur Would you say it is imprudent to believe in YEC because the Magisterium seems to be leaning in favor of Evolution?
@@catholicdisciple3232 I'm voicing Jimmy's argument: unless you are in a position to talk about it (having PhD in all relevant areas or equivalent) you should refer to the to the Magisterium, which seldom affirms, but recognise that there are substantial evidence for it.
One things for sure, Gideon is way more handsome
WLC and James Akin share that they fear a literal Adam and Eve, a literal flood, a literal Arc, a literal Judgment.
@YAJUN YUAN “Arcus” “Arktos” “Arca”
Latin, Greek, Egyptian and also Sanskrit etymologies all referring to ellipses....referring to Christ and also the Theotokos.
A strict modern language definition without historical and theological context would render your grammar naziism valid.
@YAJUN YUAN she is the second Eve, the faithful and obedient New Arc of the Covenant, contained G-d and did not die, ellipsing God to Man and Man to God. Arc
Very interesting but people with such intellects such as yourselves should be debating with Muslims, non trinitarian "christians" and atheists
I’m Mormon! Come at me bro!
@@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvyt your church is a cult
@@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvyt Your doctrine of God contradicts reason. We know the nature of God by reason and being material or contingent is not part of it
SSPX
We’re really out here debating whether the universe is 10,000 years old in 2022? What’s next are we gonna debate whether the Earth is flat?
Wonder if the church had this position for nearly 2000 years .. oh wait no they didn't.
No, 7,000.
@Samson I agree: But only using your constrained definitions of reason and possession. I heard your mom was the epitome of something.
@Samson people like these are scary. If they can believe something as ridiculous as this they can believe anything. Becoming a Catholic should make you wiser not the other way around. You shouldn’t be throwing reason and science away just because you became Catholic.
@@Veritas463 If you're Catholic you should be very skeptical about modern science. It's an atheist materialist philosophy funded by people who are not Christian and who routinely use it to discredit your faith. If you go by the science then you should stop believing in the Resurrection and the Trinity and everything else in the deposit of faith.
Crap: evolution is a theory without foundation, without a core.
@Samson Someone told me your mom was so lazy she wouldn’t even stop the train to abort your random fetal existential arse. I told them I don’t listen to gossip but it makes sense.
Let’s keep in mind that Jimmy outright endorses scandalizing children on Halloween, instead of celebrating All Hallows’ Eve.
@ACF1901 I agree with you. Jimmy is just not credible, and Catholic Answers is ridiculously liberal.
I am more convinced earth is flat, does not move or travell and it is not much older than 7500 or 8000 years. Also everyone cames from one couple of human beings Adam and Eva.
Everything is symbolic. There is no such thing as literal or at least not when it comes to communicating truth. The language of all creation is symbolic that's how we recognize patterns. That's how we ascribe meaning. That's how the ancients understood things unfortunately we have moved from a symbolic understanding of the world to a purely materialistic scientism. If you care to read the scriptures that way you miss the point.
I mean, the ancients almost unilaterally *didn't* view things as strictly symbolic, but rather both literally and symbolically.
This sounds Jonathan Pageau’s line of thinking. I actually used to believe that until I started to read more of the Church Fathers myself. St Augustine in the City of God actually calculates the size of the ark and calculates the ages of the early people in genealogies in Genesis. Church Fathers teach the importance of understanding scriptures from a literal/historical standpoint and from a symbolic one. Also I realized that Christianity is a historical religion. We cannot simply affirm the story of Christ as being symbolically true but not historically true. Secular folks like Jordan Peterson will say they believe in Christ metaphorically but cannot believe in His physical resurrection.
All symbols exist based on the literal meaning
Jimmy won hands down.
@Dan Hands down.
Nope
@@IoannesPaulus9607 Yep.
Can't wait for St. Peter's pop quiz on the age of the Earth to get into heaven.
What a waste of time and energy...
This could be said of almost any theological issue. Knowledge is good for its own sake. Not everything is a matter of salvation. God wants us to search out the goodness of the universe He created.
@Samson Seems someone is obsessed with me if you keep coming back to this same post just to continue slandering me.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 it’s jimmy’s alt lmao
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Gideon brother, don't concede on that either - the Church fathers never contradicted each others & are infallible in their teachings. Even in the case of premillenialism, they said themselves it was speculation that maybe it's the case & that they live it to the judgment of the Church, which later concluded by a council under the Holy Spirit. The issue with the Angels, i already harmonized what St. Avgustinus actually said with the true traditional view of the Church fathers. Also even the Majesterium never said that evolution is true, that's false & another misunderstanding of the nuisances of what the Popes said. I urge you Roman Catholics to not concede to APPARENT contradictions or deviations & learn how to HARMONIZE everything in unity.