Let's Talk About Evolution...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 лип 2022
- Father Pine takes on a once highly contested subject: Evolution. Does evolution disprove the truth of the bible? The Existence of God? Evolution seems to be true, does science contradict faith? What about the fossil record? Is this too many questions for a discription?
Maybe! But Fr. Pine handles all these and more in this Saturday special.
The best way to ask a question for Fr. Pine is by joining our Locals page. Signing up is free and it works as a kind of screen to sift out the trolls and those who aren't serious about being a part of Pints. Join for FREE today: mattfradd.locals.com/
📗 Fr. Pine's Brand New Book (get it and you're cool): amzn.to/3ylrUOJ
🌞 Godsplaining Podcast: / godsplainingpodcast
💻 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
📱 SOCIALS
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd - Розваги
I‘m a biology student and we are confronted with evolution every single day… to be honest it is hard because their approach is atheistic…
Remember, it's still just a theory. Macroevolution seems an illogical fantasy to me.
If it helps, I'd recommend a book called Finding Darwin's God by Prof. Kenneth Miller. He's a professor of cell biology at Brown University (if I recall correctly) and a practicing Roman Catholic. It helped me to bridge the supposed gap between the Theory of Evolution and belief in Holy Scripture.
@@Teuts2000 ehhh I'll stick to what the early church believed
@@janeyount8412 just like "just" the gravitational theory?
I was suprised how many PhD are actually thiests. One told me that if they "come put" you commit academic suicide. One professor put it this way, "science is a progress report of what we think we know at that time." Check out "The Science Delusion." It is not an attack on science being what it defines itself to be but what science has become.
"And though St. John saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators" -G.K. Chesteron
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
@@paulthompson9668 Thanks for the links. I watched both videos, nothing new, I know the argument and logic for evolution well. The second video proves my point the most: in 6:26 the presenter says that if Cetaceans and Hippos didn't evolve from a common ancestor all of these similarities are one hell of a coincidence. They don't believe in coincidences but won't believe in God either thus why they have to come up with a theory that fits both of these.
Life forms have some things in common with one another not because we have a common life origin but rather because we have a common Creator. And the idea that a banana and I have a common ancestral origin is just laughable. As Chesteron said common sense is nothing but common nowadays 😆
@@germanr84 I mean, you could insert a Creator at any point during the process of evolution, but then that raises the question, why would this Creator have inserted so many flaws, redundancies, and vestiges in so many animals (including humans). It's almost as if he were fallible. 🙃
@@paulthompson9668 indeed. That's an excellent point. My counter is that those only "seem" to be flaws, redundancies, and vestiges. Think of the nerve example used on both videos. It seems like a flawed designed unless evolution is true. But only seems like it. Think of the appendix who for years many thought was a vestige of some ancestral link but now some scientist are humble enough to say maybe there is a purpose for it but haven't discovered it yet 🤓 I'm not saying evolution is false all I'm saying that maybe is true maybe not or maybe part of it. It's too soon to know for sure, the world need needs more honest research on it and the Church should not affirm it as true that is not the Church's competence
@@germanr84 I only brought up one objection to Intelligent Design (ID). Here's a video that I found to be compelling:
ua-cam.com/video/PHmjHMbkOUM/v-deo.html
Fr Ripperger has a book and talks on this check them out it will give a clear understanding of evolution and the Church God Bless
Do you know the name of the book?
@@theoe354 The Metaphysics of Evolution Fr.Chad Ripperger he also has talks on Senus Fidelium
It’s an amazing book! Very small and easy to read. It will make you doubt at least macro evolution.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
@@paulthompson9668 after viewing the podcast you suggested I was aware of how often they want you to use your opinion of their suggested logical conclusions not pure science. May I suggest researching the development of communism and freemasonry teachings and the use of Evolution to mislead people to their evil direction. God Bless
I find it useful to remember that science watches what God does.
I bet you think that is a clever remark.
@@kevinkelly2162 and how many of your "clever remarks" do you have to make in one comment section alone lol
@@kevinkelly2162 keep coping athiest
Also God: * promotes child slavery *
@@tiagoguinhos an anime pfp talking about children how shocking!
Catholics need to read/watch the following on this topic:
1) Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer
2) Darwin Devolves by Michael Behe
3) Videos by James Tour on the origins of life
4) Videos - Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Privileged Planet, and Darwin’s Dilemma- these can be found here on UA-cam
---/-/
I used to try to blend Theology with Darwinism when I thought the science backed Darwin. The science contradicts Darwinian Evolution.
💯
Thank you. Too many are ignorant of the difference between practicing science and the naturalism/materialism taught in the education system.
Absolutely true 👍
Absolutely on point
Foundations Restored A Catholic Perspective on Origins
The Kolbe Center does excellent work showing the perennial Church teaching on creation. Hugh Owen is a genius!
Agree, True catholic teaching debunking freemasonic-Smithsonian myth THEORY of evolution,...genetics makes it clear by the process of mutation(evolution) you don't get a healthier ,better organism-quite opposite.but to understand it we need Basics in philosophy which been stopped taught, I think deliberately...
Yes I agree. Watch kolbe center.
Amen....Kolbe Center and Hugh Owen are a must. Perhaps Matt can invite him as a guest!
Thank you for this resource! I am in the process of considering reverting to Catholicism and this video had me like “oh wow, the Evangelicals are right-Catholics revere the doctrines of men over the Word of God” (by which I mean both the Word as revealed in Scripture, as well as the Word as it is written all over creation and testable, observable reality). Good to know Fr Pine’s anti-Genesis, anti-science take here doesn’t represent all of Catholicism.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
Matt - PLEASE have Stephen Meyer on your show
Matt, I'd love to hear you interview Stephen Meyer.
The author of Twilight?
@@jeremysmith7176 Stephen C Meyer :).
@@jeremysmith7176
No, not Stephanie Meyer
The charlatan Psudoscientist who has no credentials at all to speak about evolution?
The 4th Lateran Council: "God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power AT ONCE from the beginning of time created each creature from NOTHING, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body" (D.428).
The Pontifical Biblical Commission (1909): The PBC establishes that Genesis contains “stories of events which really happened, which correspond with historical reality and objective truth,” not “legends, historical in part and fictitious in part.” In short, the PBC definitively excludes the possibility that even a part of the Genesis 1-3 narrative could be fictitious and non-historical.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
@@paulthompson9668 Is this a bot? If no, are you even Catholic? I've seen this same message posted in numerous commets.
@@_kidtripp7772 No, I'm not a bot.
No, I'm not Catholic.
Have you watched the videos?
@@paulthompson9668 Oh cool. I have them in my other google tabs. I'm still deciding between YEC and the scientific narrative. However, I will watch both of the videos that you shared. I want to be intellectually honest and gather as much data as I can. God bless!
@@_kidtripp7772 Bless you too. Let me know what you think after you've watched them.
Evolution is the work of Science Fiction
Nebraska Man: In February 1922, Harold Cook wrote to Dr. Henry Osborn to inform him of a tooth that he had had in his possession for some time. He and his colleges agreed that the tooth belonged to an anthropoid ape more closely related to humans than to other apes. The tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct species of pig.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
"...as once you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just..." The words of Holy Mass must be a bit of a blow for those who do not believe in the historicity of the first few chapters of Genesis.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
How does evolution fit into the scripture that says sin brought death into the world? So if there was no death before the original sin, how would evolution work with that?
Excellent question. I wonder why people let the opinions and interpretations of scientists influence their view of scripture. I don’t care how long ago Genesis was written. God knows how to write a book, and the Holy Spirit would not deceive us.
@@melissat9120 God didn't write the Bible. People did. And people are flawed.
@@liam9776 The teaching of the church is that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we reject that we can just become perenialist or adopt yoga retreat orgy sex magic liberation theology. It's just all the same, you see
@@bogdanungureanu8655 keyword: inspired
The keyword here is "death". The answer depends on what kind we're talking about. Material death (decay) in general existed before God infused Adam and Eve with a soul, but because of sin they (and WE as the now true humans, their offsprings) lost that initial grace. If not for sin, those two and every other human henceforth would have just "died" gracefully, meaning like Mary did (soul and body together ascending to Heaven). I hope this little explanation helped, although I'm no expert in theology.
Shalom Father nice to meet you..watching from St.Francis Xavier Keningau diocese.,Sabah/Malaysia .
You should interview Dr Rope Kojonen, he has written a fresh book on the topic, The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, published by Palgrave. He has also a lot of interesting stuff to say about the theological and epistemic details as it comes to the young Earth arguments or the consequences of the Fall.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
@@paulthompson9668 were you sending these to me?
It doesn't really matter if evolution is true or not. Humanity still needs a savior.
It matters tremendously because death was part of Gods original design instead of being a consequence of Adams sin. The implications undo the entire Bible.
- No one would ever think any of this nonsense just from reading Scripture. Darwin was conclusively refuted within years after his publication as he is today by a plethora of scholars of all disciplines. As soon as pagans can find an alternative ideology to get out from under Gods authority, evolution will disappear.
@@a5dr3 Evolution is a scientific theory, so it will disappear when the bundle of facts presented to support it are superceded by a better theory - same as how any other scientific theory is treated. It's actual "usefulness" comes from its ability to adequately explain reality. To claim that it's solely being used to avoid a particular god's authority is a good example of a fundamental attribution error.
@@joelogjam9163 Evolution explains nothing. It’s like employing Santa Claus to explain gifts under the tree. It is a myth.
Even scientific theories with genuine predictive power, unlike the fantasy of evolution, aren’t necessarily true. Take Ptolemy for instance..
- and I’m only referencing Herbert Spencer, who explained the massive enthusiasm for the theory sociologically.
@@joelogjam9163 He discusses so called usefulness in this video. Scratches the surface anyways. - to employ a full materialism like most evolutionists do, would lead to universal epistemological absurdity. No abstract entities, logic, objectivity, universals, math, uniformity in nature etc..
ua-cam.com/video/LuEaJDksxls/v-deo.html
@@joelogjam9163theories don't "disappear" as our knowledge and understanding of the world around us develop the theories becomes fine tuned to help us further make sense of things around us. So the Theory of Evolution was further enhanced by the understanding of genes and genetics mutation. Theory of Evolution didn't vanish, but fine tuned with more information obtained.
It does seem the more we try to explain divine creation and our physical narrative within the popular and dominant scientific model, the greater the theological gymnastics we need perform to fit into Genesis and how it them segways into the rest of OT and finally the NT.
We seem to have reduced Genesis to less than a myth scribed by a primitive people who had no grasp of the larger physical context they found themselves in, and in the process cobbled together a working synthesis that makes little sense either physically or theologically.
All roads might lead to the Gospels, but the well-spring is after all Genesis 1-3.
I have little idea myself of the actual truth, but find it heartening that there is no definitive dogma the Catholic Church demands adherence to, delightfully deepening the mystery and still allowing us to genuinely default to literal reading, even if this puts us at odds with the ‘rationale’ consensus. Ones devotional beliefs and genuine contemplations being purely a matter between us and and our God.
I've slowly been becoming more and more open to the YEC and "evil-ution" stance as a traditionalist. Fitting Catholicism and Evolution together seems to take what Genesis says and make it super convoluted. All the Church Fathers and Saints interpreted Genesis in the YEC framework. Vatican I even dogmatically defines, "If anyone
does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God, let him be anathema." It also states, "it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers."
Thanks for your lecture. My thoughts are more connected to the scriptures. Evolution of consciousness: "who discovered to you that you are naked" Evolution of compassion: "I will tear out your stone hearth and give you new heart of meat and flesh." Or Paul's evolution from law biden Jew into Christian: "When I was a child I did childish things" even reporting in Bible although inspired word of Divine, it's language developed and became more accurate and specific as time progressed. Only to culminate in Christ.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
Generally philosophers of science and even scientists say that nothing is definitive in science and a new potential discovery could change everything we knew before; very strange that this reasonment is never extended also to the theory of evolution.
Well that's true but there's a TON of evidence FOR evolution. Genetics, paleontology, embryology, and everyday observation in our bodies and surroundings point to evolution.
So in that regard the theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity.
Both have a ton of evidence which supports the claims and it's highly unlikely to be replaced.
Critiqued? Absolutely.
Completely disregarded? Absolutely not
there is no new discovery that could prove the theory of evolution wrong. evolution is so well supported by so many different lines of evidence (with NO valid evidence against it) that it is pretty much impossible to be disproved
It is. Your problem is we keep dicovering things that support the theory of evolution.
@@kevinkelly2162 It isn't unless you interpret it in a way that is philosophically absurd.
Science builds on itself: first we thought that the sun spinned around the earth and now we know otherwise.
Just like that, before you had no clue how we popped into existance but now we have discovered fossils, genetic mutations, natural selection, speciation etc.
If we find a rock floating in the middle of the air, we would find that strange.. but rocks don't do that. Likewise, if we found a monkey with wings we would put evolution into question.. but monkeys don't have those. I can go on and on.
Meanwhile, the Bible says a perfectly moral god decided that the best move would be to make everything except for 2 of every creature to go extinct. This killed innocent animals and humans, babies included. But hey, this is me just throwing an unrelated jab
There was death and suffering before the fall?
Good question and the obvious answer is no. The same answer the martyrs knew. The same answer the mystical saints saw.
I could sit and listen to Fr. Pine talk about anything all day, but I’ve never left as unconvinced and skeptical as I am after this video.
Aye, well put.
"Evolution has been proven" (!?!?)
Vestigial organs (?!?) He might as well have parroted about "junk DNA." He's way behind the current science let alone aware of the Cambrian explosion, the lack of species migration, the mathematical impossibility of 'random' mutations designing our cells... or, that giant Elephant in the room and a key to Darwinian evolution: abiogenesis.
My suggestion to the kind Father: stick to theology and leave biology to the scientists.
@Raizygol I agree with you totally.
Convert Roy Schoeman did an excellent series on Evolution, under the title "Science and Faith: The Rationality of Belief. The 2 videos that were most enlightening to me were Parts II & III, but they are all worth viewing:
ua-cam.com/video/B_156PHW6a4/v-deo.html&ab_channel=JewishCatholic
and
ua-cam.com/video/URjw3XzAYpA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=JewishCatholic
Roy Schoeman, graduate of MIT and Harvard business school, has a very scientific mind (I believe his BA is in a scientific field) and did meticulous research for these videos. I found them extremely educational and convincing. Roy is not a creationist, however, he does view evolution, even "theistic" evolution as a very dangerous ideology that led (logically and ideologically speaking) to Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler's regimes.
If you watch them, let me know your thoughts:)
Evolution is a perfect little intro to modernism.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
That's just false and rude towards Catholics who affirm evolution. If a Catholic assents to all magisterial teaching, he would still be in perfect harmony and good standing to affirm or deny evolution. The authentic magisterium of the Church even seems to lean towards affirming evolution and scientifically, there should be no dispute regarding some evolutionary theory. Not to mention, much like modernists with hell ironically, it's also naive to dismiss evolution as impossible for God to use and we shouldn't say something regarding God is definitively false, wrong or proximate to heresy (as you are saying) unless we know for certain it is, which we clearly don't because it isn't incompatible and that hasn't been scientifically proven either.
@@IM-tl7qvThank you for your response. Let me explain further.
Just like someone having one drink in the evening every evening doesn't make them an alcoholic, one could argue that one drink a day could be an intro to alcoholism.
Yes a good Catholic can believe in evolution, I still say it's an intro to modernism.
Why? Well once genesis is metaphor and didn't actually happen, maybe other parts of scripture didn't happen and the resurrection is just metaphor. But instead Jesus rose again in our hearts.
See my logic?
@@tMatt5M I don't think it's quite as simple as that, although I thinknI get where you are going. The creation story as it relates to the first two humans is hard to understand in light of evolution- I suspect this has more to do with our limited understanding than either being incorrect. It seems to me there must be two first parents and even if there are other physical homo sapiens outside of Eden those people are different from Adam and Eve. If sin and spiritual death enter through Adam - as we are obliged to believe- is it transmitted to those physical homo sapiens Genesis possibly alludes to? It's unclear how that's possible unless God willed them to be ensouled in the same manner as Adam and inherit laterally the consequences of the fall. I think one has trouble making Adam and Eve allegorical, otherwise God created fallen people, in which case there was no fall. I suspect the answer is something that can only be understood in light of the Lamb, but we don't know and none of us can in this world.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 thank you. I find it very interesting. Not too sure how to interpret it all, but everything is supposed to be interpretted in light of the Lamb of God. I guess I'm personally neutral on evolution. Seems the fall is an historic event in the same manner as tge Crucifixion, but unlike the crucifixion we have no access to it. Why would we? It's the beginning of human history. It is before written language, modern historical method, scientific inquiry. Fascinating but frightening. Thanks again.
Really well said, father
Thank you!! Fantastic. Only Catholicism embraces scientifically revealed truth while holding robust theology and conservative values. Why hold up something that's not necessary. The way in which God has propelled evolution of species is gorgeous and awe inspiring.
Is that a fact or your opinion?
@@aclark903 Which part are you referring to?
@@chloewilson9898 Your claim about Catholicism.
@@aclark903 in my Protestant church shopping before recently converting to Catholicism, either the church holds to conservative values but also that the Bible is literal and one must reject modern science, or the church embraces scientific understanding of evolution but is "woke" and holds no robust theology about who we are, what we do with our bodies, morality and truth, etc. Take that for what it's worth. Probably 2 cents
@@chloewilson9898 I make no claim that any one church has a monopoly on truth, but you don't even mention #EasternOrthodoxy here.
The theory of evolution was the first real blow to my faith once I started to study it in college. But then I realized that it was a false dichotomy that the world sold us. That if evolution is correct, then God is not necessary. Since evolution seemed to be legitimate, my faith in the existence of God dwindled. But it was my assent to the dichotomy that was the issue. The complexity, brilliance, and beauty of the created universe only gives glory to its composer. It doesn’t take anything away from Him.
I don’t believe you, did you ever understood evolution? What did you study in college?
It was a true dichotomy, either all kinds where made in 1 day or not. Either the Bible is correct or not. But then you decided to reinterpret the creation story so it would no longer be a true dichotomy.
@@mauddib696 I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qp I am not reinterpreting the creation story. I’m just not taking it literally.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qp so you’re a scientist that doesn’t accept the scientific explanation of biodiversity.
Fr. Pine, please research science that contradicts your thesis. IOW, both sides of the argument. Recommend 1) Foundations Restored by Kolbe Ctr to start you out.
I'm just gonna emphasize how extremely speculative some of the ideas uttered in this talk are EVEN FROM AN EVOLUTIONIST PERSPECTIVE. For example I find it ludicrous to talk about the genetic bottleneck extrapolated from DNA diversity as a fact. If there were 5000 or 2 humans at the minimum, I doubt that many Atheistic scientists would bet money on a narrow answer one way or the other.
Other than that Father Pine's humbleness and knowledge in this talk is highly appreciated. Always love to see and hear from Father Pine.
Scientists are not all atheists. But no scientist has ever found proof of a god.
@@kevinkelly2162 You are mistaken as scientists St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm of Canterbury are just two examples of scientists who proved the existence of God. Leibnitz did as well although he was more a genius mathematician.
@@affel6559 When you make such a claim it is important to say how these people proved your god.
@@kevinkelly2162 St. Thomas refined Aristotle's argument for the existence of the first mover and St. Anselm is known for the ontological argument.
You can look up both on the internet, if you want.
@@affel6559 I don't get how people still believe on such weak arguments.. Time is just like god in the sense that its eternal; this is to say: there was no time before time.
Hence, there are things (such as time) that weren't 'created', but just exist. This throws the First Mover argument out of the window because that means things such as the universe could very well be like time in the sense that it always existed.
And the ontological argument is even worse: something perfect doesn't imply it exists AND my idea of a perfect god is different from yours so by your logic they should both coexist (while you claim there's only 1 true god, ironically yours).
You can push the envelope to try to reconcile Christianity with evolution, but after reading books like "Darwin's Black Box," I don't believe in evolution as a fact or even a viable theory. It's too easy to poke holes in it and too many gaps in its reasoning. No evolutionist has responded to the problem of irreducible complexity to my satisfaction - they just say "given enough time" which is their response to everything. The first academics to object to the theory were mathematicians, who applied simple odds to calculate how likely it is for us to have evolved and it is so minute that were it any other subject, it would be dismissed as mathematically impossible - it was something like you have better odds of winning the lottery and getting struck by lightening on the same day, every day of your life, than a single cell has of becoming a rational human being. But evolution is more politics than anything - something to indoctrinate with and then used to create of caricature of Christians.
Darwin at least had the courage of intellect to put his own theory before the judgement of the Cambrian Explosion- same with all grass-roots materials: far more reliable than anything said to be the 'word of god' nonsense, and all of God's word is complete and utter falsehood falsely claimed to be the truth!
Great arguments
@@jaded5308 Yes indeed; and solid science is humble, much like Darwin's placing his theory to be judged by the evidence; that humility is something that proves that theology is heretical *in and of itself* and to be rejected by all... no matter what it may claim.
Absolutely correct. There is problem upon problem especially when it comes to epistemology.
@@a5dr3 Yes indeed; therefore theology is heretical, as occultism is heretical in and of itself, and may not be supported by anybody.
Please watch Foundations Restored for authentic Catholic and magisterial teaching on this issue, as well as profuse science!
13:34 I have heard about "vestigial organs" and also about them not being so much "pure vestiges" ... Kent Hovind is not the brightest bulb in the lamp when it comes to theology of what the Church is or when it comes to Church history, but when it comes to vestigial (so called such) organs, he's a match for people who unduly admire a comment by Wojtyla.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
Fr., Please watch and study 13 dvd series “Foundations Restored” by Kolbe Center!
Just watched one of the trailers! Thank you.
Melissa, we’ll worth the $99 price. This changed the way I look at creation and how I see who God is, and greatly increased my love for Our Lord.
Well worth the time and money. "Foundations Restored" delves into the science, philosophy, theology, geology, etc.
Father Pine, I have a question.
Ineffabilis Deus:
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
You are saying Adam and Eve were born, it means they've been concieved. Before thier conception there was no sin, so they've been concieved whitout an original sin, immaculatelly.
How can we understand: "in the first instance of her conception, by a SINGULAR grace...", if Mary wasn't the only human concieved without an original sin?
How can we understand Mary's words from Lourdes "I'm THE immaculate conception" suggesting, She is the only one?
Because Adam and Eve didnt need to be saved from original sin as it didnt exist. Mary's birth was immaculate because she was SAVED FROM original sin, while God didnt have to do anything besides create Adam and Eve( straight away or through evolutionary means) as original sin didn't exist
Yeah, good point, Christopher.
Adam and Eve were not born and not conceived by any parents but created directly by God.
Mother Mary is THE Immaculate Conception.
@@EDTS_0 Immaculate means "unblemished", Adam and Eve were unblemished, until they sinned, we can say they were immaculate from their conception, just as Mary. It even sais so in "Inefabilis Deus":
"Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from ORIGINAL INNOCENCE and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift...", So why we, and She Herself, are calling the Mother of God "The Immaculate Conception", and not "a immaculate conception"?
@@Christopher-yn3sk Well I would say technically Adam and Eve weren’t conceived they were created. “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground…” (Genesis 2:7) So they wouldn’t be Immaculately conceived like Mary who was Immaculately conceived and born from St Joachim and St Anne.
@@Christopher-yn3sk because when we say someone was conceived, we already understnad that they were born with original sin, they werent born with original sin so as it didnt exist, so it cant be as immaculate as being saved from that original sin.
I get what youre saying when you say original innocence but that has nothing to do with original sin being withheld from them as with Mary, God didnt have to withhold anything from them, in being created they were orignally innocent as now sin had been committed
St. Paul taught that because of sin, death entered the world. Romans 5:12
Thank you for making this video Fr. Pine. If you are as wise as I think you are you stay well clear of the comments section, but if you do see this, I appreciate you being willing to flesh out this somewhat confusing topic. I was a protestant who converted to Catholicism largely because of the way the Church has been able to embrace faith and reason as complementary elements. Keep up the good work!
19:20 Here we already have the evil I was previously speaking of.
1) "all the descendants of that pair" - Eve would not have had the mutation unless taken from the rib of Adam, but Nicanor may be granting this to the Bible
2) descendants "within that community" - if the pair was the first to speak a human language, it would, with its children, not be able to effectively communicate with the rest of what is here abusively called a "community" since these would be lacking human language
3) making therefore any interbreeding as much a form of rape as bestiality is - it would in fact be a bestiality, except for the infertility and on top of that, any real human having that magic "mutation" would by interbreeding with ... anatomical humans that aren't anatomical humans because they can't have language ... be risking the offspring would not inherit the mutation from them, but the unmutated and bestial form of the gene from the other "parent" ...
Not to mention the evil involved in Adam biologically coming from a community without language:
1) if he was born human among non-humans, no one was their to teach him language, he would, before sinning, have been a feral child
2) or he was miraculously taught language, for instance by angels, and this would have disposed him to despise his progenitors who had no language;
3) or he was only infused with a human soul later on and had (physically necessarily) memories from having been a beast in a community without language,
4) or God spare him that by inducing amnesia;
5) not to mention the loss of perceived and emotionally relevant biological kin necessary before he could set up a mankind with Eve, in this case.
So, the theory is not just false, if you look into the implications it is evil and involves God committing cruelty to Adam before he had sinned.
20:12 _"through mating, that is through bestiality, which is a crazy part of that story"_
Indeed.
Replace the overall Biblical story with the overall evolutionary one, and you end up with crazyness.
However, even the need to outmuscle and kill off beings from which your ancestors get their biological origin is in itself sufficiently crazy, and I suppose Nicanor and the other guy mean this would have taken place even without original sin.
Goo to you by way of the zoo-and apparently some bestiality too. How is this not heresy?
@@Me-hf4ii Exactly.
Theistic Evolution is either heresy or apostasy.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
1:19 I think the double truth theory was indeed condemned in a very early syllabus of errors - that of Bishop Tempier of Paris (Archbishops only came in the time of Lewis XIV, between two Gondi's). Letare Iherusalem Sunday of late 1276 (what we would now refer to as early 1277).
1:25 St. Thomas Aquinas fought Sorbonne Averroism with argument, Bishop Tempier with condemnations.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
It is difficult to make the Bible fit the science because the science changes every few decades but the Bible always stays the same.
Yes! Which is why Christians should interpret science based on the Bible. 💕
Strictly from a scientific point of view the theory of evolution is so bad it does not even make good hogwash.
But from a religious point of view it is heresy.
Yeah because the bible is an old book and nobody needs or wants to change it
it's a waste of time
@@_xymi Anyone who looks at evolution honestly must conclude it is not science. It is a naturalist religion. Evolution does not even make for good nonsense.
For example:
They can show many negative mutations where genetic information was lost but they cannot show even one positive mutation where genetic information was gained. The evolution story would require millions of such positive mutations.
is that supposed to be a good thing in regards to bible?
It feels as if we are trying really hard to squeeze Faith into our current science theories.
First step: let's catch up our theology with science by saying the theory of evolution is probably true because JPII said it probably is.
Second step: let's speculate how Adam and Eve came to be based on such theory: all of the sudden a pair of homosapiens knew how to speak and those were the ones given a rational immortal soul
Third and final step: the population grew by those homosapiens with rational souls having sex with homosapiens without a rational soul
We need a catholic expert on evolution theory to show us how flawed this theory is.
"And though St. John saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators" -G.K. Chesteron
Can you elaborate on why this idea is flawed?
@@adesertsojourner8015 Still following the theory of evolution, it's literally impossible for there to be 7.7 billion humans on earth, all of the different in some kind of way AND all of that genetic information coming from only a pair of those humans.
If there are only 2 humans and they mate, they will only create other humans similar to them, so there's always very limited genetic pool. This implies inner breeding since there are no other ways for that initial community to procreate. This brings a problem: how is there so much diversity on Earth if Adam and Eve had such a limited one?
@@tiagoguinhos It’s plausible if there were anatomically modern humans other than Adam & Eve around for their offspring to interbreed with. Adam & Eve therefore needn’t be humanity’s genetic ancestors but rather our genealogical ancestors. The Genealogical Adam & Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass sets out this argument quite well
@@adesertsojourner8015 That would be an okay solution to the problem, yeah.. but that's very much against what the Bible proposes from what I know..
Even if that were the case, I don't think many Christians would accept that, unfortunately
@@adesertsojourner8015 God used evolution to create, except for Adam and Eve, who He created directly? If the existence for Adam & Eve is false, then the virgin birth is also false, and the existence of Christ is also false?
Wait, so there's evidence of an actual transitional form BETWEEN SPECIES?
You mean between ‘kinds’, and no I don’t believe there is...
14:06 Did one on the fossil record myself, the so called "levels" actually aren't such, when it comes to presence of land vertebrate fossils.
The Austriadactylus is not found below the Cetotheriopsis lintianus, but Cetotheriopsis lintianus is found in Linz, in Upper Austria, and Austriadactylus cristatus is found in Anckerschlag, Tyrol.
The distance from Seefeld, where Ankerschlag is, and Lienz is 194.9 km. This is 121 miles and 185 yards.
This is not selective cherrypicking, there are no Oligocene layers of fossils above the pterosaur in Ankerschlag and there are no Norian layers of fossils below the early whale in Lienz. And this is very typical, outside marine biota. Grand Canyon, drill holes in Bonaparte Basin, drill holes generally - that's marine biota. There are several layers of biota while they are still alive and swimming in the sea, scurrying on the bottom or swimming near surface.
I have a couple of friends who refuse to believe in God as I cannot give them concrete or physical proof for God’s existence. In other words, they are dedicated to scientism or materialism in a way since they won’t believe in anything that can’t be verified by science.
How would you and everyone here respond to such a critique of God’s existence?
The one response I have given is the fine tuning argument. They did not seem persuaded by that as they claimed I am trying to make a leap that I have no right to make for believing God made the world as compared to random and natural processes
The statement "everything must be verified by science " is not a scientific statement. It cannot be verified by "science ". Therefore, it is self-refuting.
There are true propositions outside the domain of the natural sciences. These sciences are, therefore, not the be all and end all, no matter how impressive.
You first need to get them to admit that something immaterial can be real and knowable through unscientific means. Bringing God into the discussion is not likely to be fruitful until they admit that. The most basic examples are mathematics and logic.
If you believe God comes to all, then let them be. If they believe that the God in the bible isn't true, let them be. In other words, think about why do you believe in God. If they don't have those same basis, it's kinda useless to try and convience them they have.
But never forget to think why others think what they do.. after telling them about the Fine Tuning argument, what do *you* think about it? Why do you think it didn't convience them while it convienced you?
Ask them to prove scientifically that we can prove everything scientifically...
@@Teuts2000 No one is claiming science can prove everything? It would be great, but there are limitations.. no one is gonna say yes to that
But did not the church condemn polygenism?
It has crossed my mind over the years since the rise of this whole science has all the answers how could God have created everything etc etc and as I have grown to listen more to discussions like this one it seems to me that what is commonly called 'evolution' could also be described as adaption. As our knowledge and skills have developed over time from moving around following herds of animals to eat and living in tents or even caves then we domesticated animals such as sheep, goats, cows etc and we could pen them in and look after them so we did not have to move around so much and we adapted to that, we adapt even now to changes in weather, landscape, potential - using the wheel to make transport and travel, making boats to cross rivers, fishing, on and on it goes.
However one thing I have exprienced for myself and so I can fully believe that all the advances man has made in engineering etc can and have come from God - even in small ways for me when I am thinking of a dish to cook or a menu to prepare or something to make/create from fabric or wool very often I will literally feel the spirit of God drop ideas into me, so if he can do that to me over what are nothing more than a trifle of course he can does and has always guided our paths to create and develop.
We have his DNA in us and a large part of that is creation he is a creative God and we are creative creatures.
So I do wonder if what science calls evolution is more adaptation??
I love how you have taken a truly scientific concept and injected a deity that has zero evidence of existing.
Why?
From what I got, evolution is adaptation over long periods of time; it's not the creature itself that improves over its lifespan, it's their community over the course of its existance.
Micro evolution is adaptation within a species. For example, dogs evolved from wolves. But macroevolutiin is from species to species, like man evolving from an ape. But that form is compatible with the Bible. He made everything to increase their own kind. And there was no death until Adam and Eve sinned. Macro evolution requires death before people ‘evolved.’
@@tammywilliams-ankcorn9533 wrong
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
11:41 Nice summing up of what Original Sin + Fomes Peccati means.
Could you spell out Fr. Nick Anorastriaco (sp?) mentioned a few times so I can look up his writings?
What do Catholics think about World Star Hip Hop?
What do Catholics think of "ghetto culture"? lmaooo
@@moisesjimenez4391 I feel that ghetto culture is more of a community than a Catholic church ever will be. Everyone that walks into a Catholic church is a zombie that doesn't care about each other. They just compare clothing and then go home every Sunday. No one actually talks to each other like rap communities or Protestants do.
its negro crap
I find it odd that this video simply treats macroevolution as a forgone fact. Shouldn’t it be discussed that this theory developed in a milieu that was seeking for an origin story that justified the disposal of God? What about the fact that evolutionary theory arose less from empirical evidence and more from the necessity to make scientific naturalism coherent?
maybe because evolution is a fact?
@@kf8512 I’m sorry but that’s simply not true. It’s a fact for those who want it to be a fact and need it to be a fact, but the skepticism by other learned scientists shows that it’s not at all obviously true. Both of us should be fine with that because we should follow the evidence wherever it leads-and at the moment that is very much open to debate.
@@tylerconrad453 Science is always open to debate.........and correction. 'God done that' is neither. Should it not be discussed that any and all progress was made only after man had torn himself free of the churches ability to define reality?
@@tylerconrad453 Evolution is a fact in the exact same way that gravity is a fact. The only scientists that are skeptical of evolution are religious fundamentalists that will find any way they can to believe in a fairy tale rather than follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is certainly not up for debate among experts, because the only evidence against evolution is “some book says a thing.”
@@kevinkelly2162 personally, I think theology is queen of the sciences and the sciences have been dealt immeasurable harm by being ripped out of their necessary grounding in theology. If our empirical pursuits have no metaphysical backing, what is left but chaos? The most powerful will impose their empirical interpretation. The Church helps safe guard the pursuit of truth in the sciences and moors man’s conscience to the good. Science without a religious and moral conscience is a scary thing.
Evolution is true, the Church recognizes in the Catechism the great value this discovery has brought forth. It's wisest to submit to the branches of science that the Church Herself recognizes are truthful, like embriology, evolutionary biology and cosmology, it's a display of the virtue of humility.
This comment section is so full of people that don't do this. It is sad, and it's the reason I will not be following this channel anymore. Putting your own interpretation of the small amount of evidence you have non-professionally given a look into before the consensus of the institution that is the community of evolutionary biologists is a prideful thing, that is not too different from what SSPX and protestants do. If this channel takes a stronger stance against this unwise prideful behaviour, it would be a good thing. Goodbye.
I recommend you watch Foundations Restored by Kolbe Center, and then let us know your thoughts
@@joekraimer5379 I'll have time in two weeks to watch that, for now how would you comment this article of the catechism in light of the information of that series?
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. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."
Agreed
@@joekraimer5379 hello? any answer?
How do you explain that article?
5:19 Actually, I think you need to review the doctrine of providence as well.
God certainly _does_ control each thing, and does so according to His plan. He _usually_ uses the mode inherent in the beings, _plus_ what one could term, for lack of better words "chaos control" and on some rather _rare_ occasions uses His power or the power of angels obeying Him outside this scheme (like when the angel of the Sun, the angel of the Moon, and Himself ceased to move Sun, Moon and stars for 12 or 24 hours on behalf of Joshua).
So, "inherent principles" or "puppet master" is not an "either or" but a "both and" ...
Now you are just being silly.
@@kevinkelly2162 No, you are being dense.
Perhaps on purpose.
Wait, what happened to Free Will if he controls everything? Or does he control us so but so well we only think we have Free Will? That would be smart from his part, uh..
@@tiagoguinhos God controlling each thing does not mean He overrides each thing. See the words I already said:
// He usually uses the mode inherent in the beings, plus what one could term, for lack of better words "chaos control" //
Now, the mode inherent in man is to have, if not 24/24 each day, at least on sufficient occasions to be responsible, precisely free will.
His control therefore takes the form of giving us freedom.
Things that are purely physical do not need this degree of respect on his part : my genes are not going to get judged (except as along with me) and I am not getting judged for my genes, but for what (having those genes) I chose to do.
Occasionalism is not what I am saying, since I already said - once again:
// He usually uses the mode inherent in the beings, plus what one could term, for lack of better words "chaos control" //
but the one item where occasionalism would be actually forbidden by the magisterium is when free will becomes non-autonomous to the point of doing only what God directly wills it to do.
Malebranche and Guélinckx differed on this point, and of these it is the one who denied freewill who got on the index.
@@hglundahl Thanks for the in depth response, but sorry my lack of understanding:
I still don't get how you can control everything and still allow for freedom: if God made us, then he knew with his omniscience what we would do in our lives, right? And if that's the case, why would he create humans in an environment or with genes that would have that future?
Am I making myself clear on this confusion I'm having? If I were a God that wanted everyone to go to Heaven, why would I put people in a situation where I knew they wouldn't?
Pope John Paul II did not say evolution is more than a theory. He said, "Today... new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.” - Address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
Fr.‘a paraphrase was accurate.
Hoover Institution “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” is a good UA-cam discussion that raises a lot of issues with theory of evolution and the problems with it.
Just bookmarked it! Thanks for the info!
@@wambaofivanhoe9307 the number 6 university in the nation is garbage?
Lol I am guessing you were not accepted
@@wambaofivanhoe9307 lol definitely rejected
It might point out issues with neodarwinism but the evidence for common descent is nevertheless overwhelming.
The question is where did death enter into the equation? In paradise, was there death already present? Maybe original sin and the expulsion of paradise means human beings were expelled from a reality where there was no death and no evolution... Somehow the effects of original sin have an effect that goes beyond time affecting the whole creation storyline... Human beings after the fall were then living in a world with death and evolution present ...
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
@@paulthompson9668
I don't need those videos. I know way more of evolution than you think, and I am not denying evolution. I don't think you got my point.
Or death in this context would mean separation from God(sin), which is why we need a saviour
Thank you Reverend Pine. Please do read/listen to one of the leading biological theologist, Stephan C. Meyer, PhD. He has done an incredibly thorough study which brings us right back to intelligent design, and basically turns "evolution/natural selection" on its head. {check books: Signature in the Cell; Darwin's Doubt]
Claire:
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
Good response Claire. The theory of evolution has never been definitively proven. God created everything and His hand guided creation. The "missing link" is still missing!!
14:12 _"there is a bridge between a more primitive and a more advanced species"_
1) You are borrowing the language of "evolution going upward"
2) There usually isn't.
3) Specifically, there is no combination of Broca area (lacking in apes and Australopitheci) and half-ape ears (of Australopitheci and of Paranthropus, near human outward, but ape inward of the hammer), no combination of human FOXP2 gene with ape-like hyoid (as in Australopithecus), on the contrary, for Australopithecus, we have an ape-hyoid and no palaeogenetic tests so far (last time I checked), for Neanderthal you have a totally human hyoid (Kebara 2) and also a human FOXP2 gene.
I wish we could throw everyone that has commented on this video into a room to see what would happen lol
On a certain level this narrative explains certain passages in Genesis (e.g. Cain fearing that he’ll be murdered even though him and his parents are the only living persons at that stage) which are otherwise very strange given a YEC interpretation. It could also offer an explanation for the bit about the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of Man” in Genesis 6
I’d like to hear a little deeper discussion into “why” evolution of humans is considered a “fact”. I find that more interesting then “how” it occurs.
Because thats what life suggests. All living things evolve. Evolution is one of the criteria for something to be considered alive in the same way for something to be alive it must be in homeostasis. Look up the biological definition of life. Thats why
because DNA, fossils, atavistic traits, mutations, ERVs, etc…
I think if more people looked into why evolution is considered a “fact”, they would actually realize that it isn’t.
@@mauddib696 I googled “the biological definition of life” and this is what it says “Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli.” Not sure how that answers why evolution of the human species is a fact.
@@ShepherdMetalBand
-responsiveness to the environment;
-growth and change;
-ability to reproduce;
-have a metabolism and breathe;
-maintain homeostasis;
-being made of cells; and.
-passing traits onto offspring.(evolution)
First thing when you look up the criteria of life. So either you’re blind or a liar. For something to considered a living organism it must evolve.
Is the virgin birth historically true, or is it a 'parable,' a 'spiritual lesson' that actually didn't take place in time?
Is the crucifixion of Christ historically true, or is it a 'parable,' a 'spiritual lesson' that actually didn't take place in time?
If the virgin birth of Christ is historically true, if the crucifixion of Christ historically true, why is it a problem that Adam & Eve existed historically?
It is not a problem if they existed, but you are missing the point of Genesis if you think it is a purely factual/scientific story - also there are big differences between the old and New Testament in terms of historical accounts versus stories. The bible isn’t one genre.
Bcz Most early church fathers didn't approve of it as literal
@@berserkerbard "but you are missing the point of Genesis if you think it is a purely factual/scientific story" how am I missing the point?
@@berserkerbard "also there are big differences between the old and New Testament in terms of historical accounts versus stories. " can you give some examples?
@@4thlegion253 the 'early church fathers' didn't believe the virgin birth and the crucifixion of Christ wasn't a literal, historical event?
Aristotlean hylemorphism (where transcendental form and telos is prior to its material expression in nature) is a much more defensible hypothesis than Darwinism, which literally puts the cart before the horse.
Just do a simple population growth example and see what growth rate is needed to reach current world population in ~4350 years(flood) v 200,000 years. Might be surprised :) spoiler alert: "bottle necks" do not account for enough and must be worldwide
8:31 And intellect is a capacity both needing and being needed for notionality.
Brutes have no notionality. They communicate on the basis of pure immediate practicality. Some evolution believers have pretended to find notionality in the communications of green monkeys.
The issue is, according to whether a danger is a snake, a land carnivore (typically lion) or a rapacious bird, they will give three different signals eliciting three different responses or types of flight. But the three signals don't refer with a disinterested curiosity to three types of non-monkey beasts, they are three types of practical response.
So, green monkeys have no notionality.
All men have. That is why all men have languages that have three layers of functioning, namely 1) phrase (sometimes just a single word), this being composed of 2) morphemes (notionalities and metanotionalities) and each of these being composed of 3) phonemes (lacking any meaning, either practical or notional, except self referential, in isolation). In a beast, basically "phrase = phoneme" (with some variations in rhythm and intensity and pitch).
This means, human and bestial communications function in so radically different ways that human communications cannot have evolved from bestial ones, any more than you can repair a trouser into a house or a house into a trouser.
Off your meds?
@@kevinkelly2162 I am not on meds in the first place.
Are you an Atheist and fanatic Evolutionist?
I was trying to conduct a civil discussion between (more or less) Catholics.
I was never a sea cell nor lemur nor an ape .
Original sin is not a thing per se, it is a lack of a thing, a privation. A lack of a thing that is not a physical thing in the first place, is not something that can be positively transmitted, but the privation is in a sense transmitted by default, since it becomes the default condition as a result of Adam's sin.
Evolution yes, but not abiogenesis.
You should have on paleontologist Dr. Gunter Bechly, an atheist turned Roman Catholic Thomist.
Human consciousness is distinct from the animal is it not? At some point human consciousness entered the animal body (aka the fall from Paradise) and so began the influence on change of the animal body (aka evolution). I've not yet heard better therefore I believe I see it correctly.
It all depends on what you mean. Be careful not to fall into strict dualism.
It's only my synopsis (not complete)
Well if you learn anything about the human body and how the brain functions, we have innate cognition just because of how our brain functions but also learn a lot of our behavior from our family and community. In this sense I would say that we are closer to animals. This method of development is seen similarly in parallel primate species (who we did not evolve from, but rather evolved separately from a common ancestor). So likewise, we share a lot of the sinful and antisocial traits that might be seen similarly in primates and other herd animals.
I would say the moment we evolved into God's chosen species is when we fully developed a pattern seeking brain and began the advancement into seeking dominion over our environment and to study things beyond survival (ie technologies, arts, sciences, language, etc). What has set humans apart physiologically from other animals has prepared us to be set apart spiritually and partake in creation alongside God. Which is why it was particularly sinful for us to partake in the evil behavior we see in other animals, because with the power of our awareness we should know better than to destroy and seek self-gratification.
Yes we have a lot in common with the animals and that's bcz our bodies came from the animal kingdom but we obviously are not animals. One difference that is very obvious is we have a more highly developed frontal lobes than any other species. *No other* animal, bird, fish & insect can compare. Their heads slope backward (in relation to the jawline). Their behavior is mostly instinct based (90%) with some learning ability (10%). Vs humans. We have some instinctual behavior (10%) but most of our our behavior is learned (90%). Therefore learning is more highly necessary for us than any other species on earth. No matter what the physical similarities we are not animals. Humans that have tried to live a totally feral (wild) life have not fared well. We can't bcz we're not.
Scientists/archeologists may point to where the differentiation bwtn animal to human began but they cannot know where/when human consciousness (aka the soul) entered in.
I'm pretty sure that the latest science on evolution goes well beyond basic darwinian understandings of random mutation causing gradual development over time. At the cellular level, my understanding was the cell will use all of its accumulated genetic information to rapidly create a new sequence to solve whatever problem it is currently having. And it has the intelligence to know what the problem is, use random recombinations as a tool, and if the newly created/obtained sequence solves the issue. Other creative solutions led to species being able to rapidly evolve/adapt to changing environments (for example anti-biotic resistant bacteria sharing the genetic solution of resistance from organism to organism). There is some intelligence built into that kind of system (science has yet to explain how the cell knows these things).
Science has yet to explain a lot of things. Religion, on the other hand, has yet to explain anything. God done that is not an explanation.
@@kevinkelly2162 Actually that's a better explanation than 'random energy field did it!!!'
I'm not sure what you are hinting at OP. There is no such thing as a rapidly changing DNA in evolutionary theory. There surely are processes that go beyond simple natural selection but rapid genome adjustments is something I've never heard of in that context.
@@affel6559 But nobody says that. You are the only one implying intention.
@@affel6559 Epigenetics
6:44 Actually, the only diachronical story you _can_ prove (more or less) is that Meganeura and Dinosaurs have died out.
Meganeura being giant dragonflies. I'm happy to say the Flood wiped them out, I'd not like to live close to a dragon fly that's one meter from head to tail. Even if it ate only insects. The two fossils we have for that one are at a proper distance from any pre-Flood habitations, there is no proof Creswell Crag was inhabited by Neanderthals who were a pre-Flood race, and there is definitely no proof Grotte de Fées was (apart from its being 53 miles from the Meganeura in Commentry).
Dinos or more properly pterosaurs and dimetrodontes (neither of which classify as dinosaurs, technically) may have died out somewhat later, if Gundicarius' brother in law and Chlochilaicus' nephew killed one of each.
Prove the flood.
@@_xymi Let's distinguish proof from defense. Proof means saying, why am I believing it. Defense means saying why this, that or sundry other consideration doesn't make me not believe it. You asked for proof, don't complain I didn't defend.
Because Noah recorded the Flood with his sons, in writing or orally, the textmass IS small enough to permit a very faithful oral transmission over the time from the event to 942 years later when Abraham was born (especially as lifespans were longer than ours) and the fifty years later date when his great-grandfather Sarug had to cease telling him about it.
Abraham had the physical means of keeping notes in written form in his caravans, and that's how the story was both preserved and reread up to the time when Moses included it in his magnum opus as researcher, the Genesis (the other four books are his works as autobiographer, campaign documenter and prophet).
The Genesis was then copied and recopied professionally - he had been instructed by Egyptian scribes - by his brother Aaron and his descendants, to our day, plus branch off translation versions from the Hebrew one, also to our day.
That's my likeliest text history for the relevant chapters of Genesis. A possible hypothesis is, the events were in fact documented by each of his sons, so that we have double accounts for that reason (the repetitions could be analysed otherwise, like recapitulations, if Noah himself were the author).
At each known stage, except lately through the enlightenment and possibly also through Sadducees at an earlier time, these events were taken as literal history, not as a fairy tale conveying symbolic truth.
Such a reception argues, it is historic truth, unless you can offer a good scenario for why a fairytale became tacked on to the national memories of a people involving them to be a small remainder of a stage of mankind that other peoples (and Abraham's father and grandfather) went away from.
It's not like "back to year X, we have historic memories, before that, we known nothing for an unknown number of centuries, then we believe that a few highly peculiar events, unlike what came since then had happened" - in that case those events could be tacked on.
Genesis through Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Four Books of Kings, this is a gap free history from Creation to Babylonian Capitvity. Some of it resumed in Two Books of Chronicles. That leaves very _little_ place for tacking on fairy tales at the back end of a real history.
Compare the gap between Mahabharata times and Ashoka, Hinduism has lots less to say for Mahabharata and Ramayana, even so I believe in a rough historicity for these (notably due to parallels with Genesis) - but only rough, like obvious borrowings from Greek clearly pre-Indo-Greek times Homer, like bad theology, like displacing Flood and Rama's journey into pre-Mahabharata times (probably the most radical anachronism in orally preserved history I know of).
It's also notable (sorry, tired, forgot what I was saying, I'll get a coffee).
Back.
It is also notable, and the chronologically displaced _but extant_ Hindoo flood legend examplifies it, there are 100's of parallels to the Biblical Flood story all over the world in many cases clearly independent of Moses, and if you want to cavil about "na, so many differences there, so many differences those ones, and so many more at these ones" you are demanding the level of correspondence of independent eywitness accounts, not the level expected from independent retelling.
Imagine a geneticist saying "no, they aren't second cousins, I can't detect the similarity of homozygotic twins" ...
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
If we posit pre-Adamic humans this explains all, if we don't interpret Genesis through the wooden literalism of Young Earth Creationism. Adam was the first spiritually modern human, and his descendants both outcompeted and interbred with other humans, for both good and ill. So, we children of Adam are all that remain of humans that once existed.
To say I am disappointed with this take is an understatement… When I look at the art of a famous artist, or the designs of a famous engineer, I see commonalities, signatures, between all of that creator’s creations that are his own personal style (for instance I can always tell a Tesla design, or an Apple design, or a Michaelangelo painting, or a Monet, or DaVinci’s work. Even before I know the author of the creation, I can see it’s theirs by the way they designed it. I do not assume that one of the creations must have evolved from another (like a Model 3 didn’t magically evolve into Cybertruck-although the creators likely used some of the same blueprints to design both vehicles). Similarly, our Creator has a style He likes-and systems that work for life on earth regardless of what organism they are in. Why would we expect Him to reinvent the wheel every time He creates a new creature just to “disprove” Darwinism… this is not to say speciation, epigenetics, and micro evolution aren’t very easy to prove, but they are more a proof for a master engineer than they are for complex macro evolution (micro evolution, epigenetics, and speciation are, I think, what Fr Pine was talking about when he said that God give us all some level of agency in our lives here, we can move and adapt and grow-but at the end of the day, our code is still our code-and we will never see a change in KIND). None of those forms of “evolution” are proof that a lizard can lay an egg and out pops a bird, or a chimp can birth offspring in the form of an “early hominid”-and Darwin’s finches are still all finches… Furthermore, if “transitional species” were a real thing, evolutionists wouldn’t point to coelacanths in the fossil record as evidence that fish became lizards-which they did until the 90s when, “65 million years later” have LIVING coelacanths were found off the coast of South Africa… I know, I know, evolution just stopped for them right? Evolutionary pause for 65 million years on one of the only species we can see in the fossil layer and living in modern times. In terms of the age of the earth (which is necessary to be billions of years in order to give time for all these evolutionary hurdles and pauses to be overcome and select for the impossible advantageous mutations to occur)-why do we still find soft tissue on dinosaur fossils? Why do we still find BONE in dinosaur fossils? These aren’t even rare findings either. They are fairly common-pointing to an extinction event much more recent than the 65 million years the evolutionists needs us to believe for their worldview to have enough time to have a chance at working.
15:37 _"anatomically modern humans arise between 200 000 and 100 000 years ago"_
According to K-Ar dates, probably, which are basically worthless.
You cannot exclude Argon having been trapped, if the lava cooled down during the Flood with lots of water flowing in sideways and from above to cool it down.
You cannot even calibrate the halflife, as you can with Carbon 14, by using objects with organic material of historically known age. Sth that is 2000 years old has a known age in certain parts of the world (like Roman Empire) and 2000 years is a significant part of 5730 years.
Beyond 3000 years ago, historical dating gets a bit iffy, and that is peanuts, it's microscopic, in relation to the purported halflife of 1.28 billion years.
I would like to add, K-Ar has in recent times been replaced, often enough, by Ar-Ar. I am less sure about the reason for inflated measures with this one.
This “problem” of Genesis, evolution and creation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. Ask yourself why this might be so.
Wait, how is the rejection of the historical account of Adam and Eve GLORIFYING TO GOD?
Read Creation Rediscovered by Gerard J. Keane.
the Kolbe institute of the study of creation has an excellent article by dr Jeffry bond "a philosophical critique of darwin's the origin of species.
16:49 Nicanor Austriaco is one "Dominican" who doesn't even bother to answer emails.
I have emailed him twice with links to my refutations, not even an acknowledgement.
Is there anyway I can read them ? Read most of your comments and it's really helpful. Thank you
Ever Virgin Most Powerful Mother of God Mary triumph and reign in all hearts and all minds especially us - many misguided creatures who believe science explains all - except why we even have existence - Thanks be to God for Catholicism: the science of saving souls from lies and revealing the will of our Father made known by the Son empowered by the Holy Spirit through Ever Virgin Most Powerful Mother of God Mary!
July 31, 2022 - Twenty Second- Sunday Ordinary Time
This is a great video. Thank you for sharing. I see others have mentioned Stephan C. Meyer, and his work which appears necessary for the complete picture on this subject.
17:22 _"there may have been some mutation in the human species that predisposed for the reception of the rational soul"_
Broca's area, Wernicke's area (which by itself doesn't seem to leave traces in the skull, it's deduced from Broca's being there), human FOXP2 gene, human ears (both inner and outer parts), human hyoids are all present even in Neanderthals and most of them (hyoids haven't been found, genes haven't been tested) in Homo erectus soloensis.
I would not say these "predispose" to a rational soul, they are intimately connected to one. They are basically useless without one.
More importantly, none of these can be explained with _one_ mutation.
So, Nicanor Austriaco is widely off the mark in presuming there was one mutation in the species Homo sapiens which predisposed to the reception of a rational soul. His view of what mutations _do_ is on the level of Spiderman technoblabla.
17:28 _"has something to do with our capacity for language"_
Well, it cannot be proven any of that was lacking "before the rise of anatomically modern humans" on the evolutionary view.
Homo erectus soloensis needed language to do tools which were technically close to the Levallois technique, but bigger. Tools which on this dating scheme is dated to more than half a million years ago.
So, if Nicanor Austriaco took his stance seriously, he should conclude Adam lived 1/2 million years ago, which makes the _historic_ transmission of Genesis 3 events an impossibility.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
Hsjodu uh hdbbcbbd
The gibberish above was randomly created by my fingers sliding over letters on my phone. There is information here, but it is of a certain kind: statistics. You can state facts about it. “There are three h’s” for example. Statistics is the lowest form of information. If you had letter magnets and threw them at your refrigerator, you could come up with the line above.
hat shelf jump a
This is not merely statistics because there are arranged words. They are not arranged in a manner corresponding to recognized language parameters for a sentence (syntactics), but we recognize them as words. They are not random in themselves, but only in their order. This is cosentics. One level up from statistics. If certain letters stuck to your fridge when you threw them, you might get one or more of these words out of your throwing. Not likely, but possible.
My dog ate my homework.
Now we’ve reached semantics, within rules of syntax. Not only do we have recognized words, but a recognized meaning in the arrangement of the words. By random chance throws and blindly picking the letter magnets out of a hat, you would never get semantics, but even if you miraculously did, you wouldn’t have meant to get semantics.
Please take out the trash.
Now we have a request. This is pragmatics. We are asking for a task to be completed. Now, it may not happen, as many a parent or wife will tell you. If your magnet letters start asking you to do requests when you randomly throw them at your refrigerator, please let a local psychiatrist or exorcist know.
Now, when you use pragmatics, making a request, and you have an expectation that the request will be understood and replied to with either words or actions, that is called apobetics. Not alphabetics. That’s Big Bird. Apobetics. Request and reply information. If you purposefully wrote out “Please take out the trash” on the refrigerator and came back later to find it now said, “Took out the trash” you’d know your Apobetics had served its function.
The last seven decades of biological science has revealed that cells use coded information language. It is clear that inside of cells, there is not just statistics and cosentics, which you might expect from a random process. There is semantics and pragmatics and especially Apobetics. Within all of the trillions of cells in your body all the time this level of information is going on. Cells must read code, copy it, self-correct it, send and receive instructions and function assignments, interact with other cells and form structures in complicated patterns cooperatively. There are cognitive and purposeful events occurring requiring recognition of meaning and teleological construction. Nothing random or generationally selective could ever account for what happens in cells.
Now, for Darwinian evolution to be correct, only statistical and possibly cosentic information can be going on in biology, as there is no source for information other than random mutation and natural selection in the Darwinian framework.
So Darwinian evolution is false. There must be some other teleological source for the information processing system occurring in cells, and in every cell since the first life.
There is a religious, orthodox devotion to Darwin in many scientific circles. Methodological Naturalism as a presupposed philosophy leads to rejection out of hand of any answer that could possibly require more than nature and chance. This keeps us still believing in Darwin’s error. It keeps us talking about things in evolutionary terms that aren’t based on the actual way biological history progressed. Periodic creative teleological innovation is going on, and talking about natural selection and random mutation as the basis of biological advancement is an incorrect way to talk about any topic.
Nature has given us a pragmatic request: stop believing in evolution in this way the science contradicts. But the Apobetics on our part- of hearing and replying with understanding- seems to have been short-circuited. Now, as supposedly smart and honest people continue to deny these things, it can make rational people who know it is true string together characters that appear random even as they are designed:
$@!&%!
(1) Does the church hold that all modern humans have the same parents original parents ? (How could this have been ?)
(2) Does the church hold that there was no suffering / death prior to the fall ? (Fossil records would indicate otherwise. Death has seemingly been around long before modern man.)
How can we as Catholics resolve this seemingly objections ? Thanks !
1) Yes that church holds that, in fact polygenism is condemned by the church, I find odd how he is not aligned with church teaching
2) When Scripture say about death entering the world is talking about human death not animals and other beings, actually many theologians trough the history of the church believed that man's immortality was derived from the tree of life, that's why they were forbidden of eating it after they sinned.
There is a term scientism aithest. One does not believe in science. Science requires believers because the theories require leaps of faith.
Not true... science has to do with the best evidence available which doesn't rely upon whether you believe it or not. If Fr. Georges Lemaître discovered the truth with the Big Bang, it doesn't require your belief to be true.
Scripture and Tradition > Modern Scientific theories proposed in order to explain origins without God.
15:41 _"behaviourally modern humans arise between 100 000 and 75 000 years ago"_
It is easier to ascertain human behaviour with someone buried in a grave than with someone buried under lava, right?
So, the earliest examples of these (or all other) would often be carbon dated, and would be pre-Flood men, while the "anatomically, not behaviourally" would be people in the Flood who got trapped under lava with human customs less observed by them and theirs and less observable by us.
The flood never happened. . . You’re an adult right? And you believe that the entire planet was once flooded?
@@mauddib696 There are adults who believe that aliens founded Egypt or Sumer or both and were thought of as gods but aren't exactly that, but are a much more advanced civilisation deserving our deference as much as patanonian deference was due to white colonisers, if they should appear again.
Adults with some life experience know that adults believe a lot of strange and impossible things (like deference being due about degrees of civilisation, rather than morality, or like any man meeting a newcomer needing to take for granted that he has a "higher degree of civilisation" than himself just because he offers technological proof).
So, quit the treating-me-like a child or retarded or in a moment of relapse into childhood, and start treating me as an adult who happens to be wrong, which is, if you are civilised, what I rationally would be from your persepective.
As a first step "excuse me" might do and as a second step, telling me in rational terms (rather than condescending "come on's") why I should somehow NOT believe the whole globe was flooded.
@@hglundahl people who believes in fairy tale are people that never made or will make any sense to me. I just wannabe clear here and ask if you believe Noah took two of every animal from all 7 continents? Im an advocate for reasons and evidence. And according science there isn’t enough water on this planet to flood it. Where did that water come from?
@@mauddib696 It wa probably a local flood. The text is being hyperbolic.
@@hopefull61256 exactly because the bible if filled with lies. Nothing is true just distortion of ancient stories. Its all just big game of telephone and none of its true. God apparently had to make hyperboles for everything because he needs to make it look like it’s derived mythology I guess.
There are multiple flood stories and the ones from around the Iraqi flood-plain have a remarkably similar story to global flood nonsense. The bible is just a fairytale with talking animals, fore-breathing dragons, and witches and wizards. Sad that people actually believe in the modern age but we live in a free country.
10:40 Please note, the ontological difference can be proven and detected in ways that do not involve the supernatural destiny.
Some "Catholic" theologians may have looked at cannibalism in Atapuerca, in Homo Antecessor, and concluded "these fellows had no supernatural destiny" ... well, they had. They just were missing out on Heaven by practising cannibalism.
*For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark,*
Eating = cannibalism
Drinking = vampyrism
Marrying = gay marriage
Giving in marriage = forced marriage
The cannibalism part is evident in Antecessor, and the vampyrism part has been seen a bit more often than the cannibalism part in recent decays of society, and now we have gay marriage too.
Graphic language, please avoid reading if you're prone to scandal.
Wow, interesting interpretation of that passage. I had always interpreted eating as gluttony, drinking as drunkenness, and the other two as they are. As if they were just living without a care for God. But not to that evil of an extent - cannibalism, vampirism, etc.
But looking at the current state of society, I can see the interpretation you pose as viable.
Drinking blood - Machine Gun Kelly and Megan Fox have talked openly about cutting each other and drinking each other's blood.
Cannibalism - some people have begun openly speaking/writing of a fetish for eating humans as good and acceptable. I think it was Cosmopolitan. But also Zachary King a Satanist who converted to Catholicism in his conversion story talked about rituals where members would perform an abortion and eat the body of the murdered child. This by the way would be the baby of a 'mother' impregnated multiple times for this very end in separate sex rituals.
Marrying - Sodomy as a supposed form of marriage is self-evident as you stated.
Along those lines, the pushing of kids to be trans in schools by leftist indoctrinators which lead to them having surgeries where their bodies are mutilated. Have to take hormones for life and have astronomical suicide rates. And their parents potentially being arrested if they interfere with this supposed 'good' that is 'transitioning' (at least the case in Canada).
Forced marriage - child and adult sex trafficking?
@@NaruIchiLuffy Yeah, it seems Matthew 24 is coming to fulfilment as to prophecies.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
At 1:30 you mentioned genuine findings of science. I feel that many Christians are too willing to accept findings of science as genuine. The more they believe the 'findings' of science, the more chapters of the Bible they end up disbelieving.
You should have Fr Ripperger on your show to discuss this issue. He is an expert. Although not a salvation issue it's still very important.
I disagree, what you are describing is the God of the gaps, which Bishop Barron has often taught, is not who we believe God to be.
Fr. Ripperger gets most of evolution wrong unfortunately.
@@famvids9627 What does he get 'wrong'? Could you support your statement?
In the end the mystical saints who saw creation laugh at this foolishness, as does Moses and Adam. I can't wait for the Great Final Judgement where the eggs on faces will be exposed.
One can only imagine.
"What.. it was that simple... Simply believing the account as described in Genesis?." 0_0
"Yes"
"But muh science!"
"Your science would have rejected a virgin birth and the instantaneous transformation of water into wine."
"But those... Those things are miracles"
"You know creation doesn't happen every day now does it?"
We can sometimes directly see small-scale evolution, or microevolution, taking place (for example, in the case of drug-resistant bacteria or pesticide-resistant insects).
God be with you.
@@liam9776 the longest running experiment's result is hilarious with loss of genetic material being called evolution and proof of evolution. Just because something gains function, if genetic material is lost, it is lost forever. Isolated, it will never ever ever regain said genetic material. I am specifically referring to the steelman of evolution. Richard Lenski's touted succes where bacteria "evolved to eat low nutrient broth". What is hilarious is knowing that the result they shove in the faces of creationists as evidence of supposed evolution. Is what we already know to be adaptation. But what happened on the genetic level was rearrangement and loss of regulation, due to permanent loss of genetic material. The same holds true for your other examples. And if you believe that is enough evidence to believe that all life came from a single cell organism... I have a few bridges to sell you
@@jackdaw6359 I'm listening.
Incompatible. Adaptation yes, evolution no. The word of God says he made us from the dust of the earth. Breathed life into us.
that doesn't contradict evolution, you know?
I agree with this. Sadly the word Evolution has been entirely demolished and the meaning is something it really isn’t to so many people. Adaptation gets the point across and is a form of true evolution (sometimes called micro evolution).
@Jack Hummell Humans were created with reason, morals, and intellect. That we know through The Bible.
Isnt Evolution just adaptation?
2:Our bodily components, like iron, carbon... were forged in the stars. We are made from star dust and such dust is what the planet earth is made off.
Spot on. Adaptation is proven. Macro evolution, and the idea of ALL life from a single cell, is not. If you argue this, simply add up the differences between two species that are supposed to be related, divide by time and compare with the amount of positive mutations needed
16:08 _"never bottlenecked more narrowly than 10 000 breeding pairs"_
Ouch.
1) The purported reason is debunked if you look at the population of Pitcairn Island. It has bottlenecked to very few, comparable to "one couple" if that one had a perfect genome, which we today have not;
2) and the consequence is a denial of Adam being individual and ancestral to all men who die. In other words, a denial of Catholic dogma.
So did Neanderthals and Denisovans have souls? Apparently they were very intelligent however they didn’t have as great a capacity for language as the Homosapiens
Thank you for this I've been thinking on evolution in this kind of context for a while. There are forms or meme humanity engages in to order our biological behavior and these meme are conducive to preserving humanity and bringing it to its fullness. Disengaging with this order (sin) is a way of rejecting humanity. If not for the mercy of God we would eventually cease to be human.
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:
ua-cam.com/video/c_jyHp3bmEw/v-deo.html
And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/LwfxSz73hdI/v-deo.html
@@paulthompson9668 I understand evolution well enough scientifically what I'm doing is showing how it doesn't contradict Christianity and I'm showing how it can easily be incorporated into Christianity.
@@goodcatholicboyowo4121 Throughout history, the only way that Christians have been able to incorporate science into Christianity is by saying that more and more of what is in the Bible is a parable.
@@paulthompson9668 wrong, as early as the 3rd century you had Christians claiming that genesis is poetry.
@@goodcatholicboyowo4121 What you said doesn't contradict what I said. In fact, it only strengthens my assertion that Christians throughout time have had to accept that different parts of the Bible are not factual.
Dear Father, you generally say that Aquinas's teachings can be reconciled with the modern theory of evolution (a more precise defintion would be encouraged, perhaps you mean biological macroevolution). But then you come up with the theory of human origins, which even in your own words is weird (humans descending form a population, engaging in bestiality, etc). So, how is it possible that you believe in the harmony of Aquinas and evolution, but in order to make peace you need to accept such bizzare ideas? I am wondering what would Aquinas say about it. Isn't it that Aquinas actually explained how humans began to exist? (See STh I,90-92, especially question 91). How would you reconcile Aquinas' teachings on human origin with the stories you say?
If one is interested in the theories of evolution, I recommend this video:
ua-cam.com/video/pwnerL8M1pE/v-deo.html
It goes over the different theories of evolution and some of the make much more sense than what we were taught about evolution from our science classes.
I thank the Byzantine Scotist for changing my mind on evolution. Growing up in public education had me mindlessly accepting evolution as dogma.
Are you also a geocentrist now too?
@@Seethi_C based if so.
@@jackdaw6359 Nothing based about being ignorant of reality
@@Seethi_C Evolution is a reality only in your mind.
@@Seethi_C that can be said of those who scoff at divine revelation. And the interpretation of the church of words determined to be widely believed in favour of something that by definition will always be uncertain.
Aka revelation guided by the magisterium can be determined to be 100% certain.
Our Lady was assumed into Heaven.
We know this 100% because of the magisterium. No amount of needless speculation can change that certainty one iota. No amount of science can change that either. Not even if it is scientifically thought to be impossible.
Now compare that with the certainty that science provided with ever changing models that can and will throw 180 degree turns and sometimes 360 degree turns.
Imagine scoffing also at what the mystical saints knew to be true.
And what most saints believed to be true based on Revelation itself.
Now, one can choose to undermine the Magisterium by saying that heresy is reformable said defined heresy being what Mr Galileo was accused of, as going against the interpretation of the church,
But now you have a dilemma because it seems then that you are saying that what was once believed to be Divinely Revealed can be overturned because of science. Science therefore can alter our understanding of genres of Scripture. For this we are rightfully mocked by atheists who for example understand the linguistics and the history behind the book of Genesis.
Ridiculous to the mind of any sensible Catholic but tempting to anyone who mindlessly follows what the world speaks of as science.
Then what follows just as terribly is an appeal to modern popes who have also bought into the science of today.
Apparently now they can teach regarding science, but they couldn't in the past? Ludicrous. That is a blatant contradiction.
Rather we should investigate with what levels of authority the church had defined the error of Galileo. ( Not accuse, as I recognise the weight of his accusers, but rather what 3 popes had *defined as his heresy*, which was his faulty interpretation of Scripture.)
What didn't help was the blatant lies told by a priest to get Galileo's work removed from the index and that the church couldn't consult the prior documents because Napoleon had taken them at that time. Robert Sungenis goes into quite some detail as to the whole affair and backs it up by merely refering to the Magisterium. And ByzCat was right to not just wave his arguments away like you would.
18:26 There is no warrant for distinguishing a biological from a theological kind, when it comes to man.
There are so many traces of men (Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Heidelbergians, Antecessors - these last three may be synonyms - and Homo erectus soloensis) having a rational soul either for material equipment for language or from behaviour, that it's ludicrous to "limit" the theological species man to a kind of subspecies of Sapiens sapiens.
18:47 _"before the infusion of the human soul"_
Sorry, but the material conditions for language only make sense in a kind that has language and having human language is in and of itself a proof of already having a human soul.
If y'all could get Jordan Peterson on Guestsplaining and/or Pints, that would be great
Tell me you are simple without telling me you are simple.
So let me ask you to what extent are you acquainted with the behaviour of juvenile chimps?
Check out the Cambrian Explosion.
5:54 If you are talking of human genes being part of the reasons why we have blondes and blue eyes, black haired and brown eyed, redheads with green eyes and a few combinations other than these stereotypes, fine. God has imparted on human genome the dignity to be part of the cause of why the human genome looks like it does with its variations right now.
But recall that human beings are the most high of all bodily creatures (except according to those who consider angelic beings have a kind of corporality). It is absolutely not part of the dignity of man to have one celled creatures or lampreys among its ancestry and that instead of God directly as cause for its genome.
And before you say "but it adds dignity to lampreys and to one celled creatures" - that's absolutely _not_ how St. Thomas views the cooperation of creatures with the creator, it's rather higher creatures that cooperate with God about lower ones. It's perfectly fine to say man cooperated in making Chihuahuas and Great Danes from an ancestor looking more or less like a wolf, for example. It's _not_ perfectly fine to say lampreys cooperated with God in making us us.
And I am not making up lampreys. They are not one species, they are a class, and the actually "earliest" class of vertebrates "on the grand evolutionary scheme." I looked it up.
So, while micro-evolution clearly does give the proper type of dignity to creatures (human genes and mutations and recombinations contribute to make humans what they are, wolf genes and recombinations contribute, with human selection to make dogs what they are) the "grand evolutionary scheme" clearly does not, but puts the order of created hierarchies upside down. As I have already mentioned to a Dominican who gave no answer.
Okay, but what makes us higher than the other animals? Is it our physical design, or is it our soul?
Very well put!
@@melissat9120 Thank you - unless you meant Thomas Bailey!
@@thomasbailey921 Our physical design is made to suit our soul.
No animal without a rational soul would profit from the physical design with which we are made capable of speech.
@@hglundahl No, hahah I meant you! I don’t usually comment on videos so maybe my reply didn’t go through clearly. 🙃