Should Catholics be young-earth creationists? (with Jimmy Akin)

[@emilyroberts4150]

I grew up LCMS Lutheran and nearly lost my faith because of young-earth creationism. I became Catholic in 2019 mainly due to the work of the Holy Spirit, however, Catholic Answers ( and particularly Jimmy and Trent) answered many of my questions along the way. Also, this video came out on my birthday and feels like a birthday present to me, thank you both.

[@VieiraFi]

Is young earth creationism the official LCMS position or is it just very common there?

[@williamrodriguez4994]

@@VieiraFi I googled it and apparently LCMS had a convention defining Genesis 1 as being Literally 6 days for earth’s creation.

[@krjohnson29]

@@VieiraFi Not sure about LCMS, but I was in the WELS synod and (though I'm not sure what "official" synod definition there was) my pastor certainly made it seem like it was official.

[@emilyroberts4150]

"It has generally been taught in our church that unless there is a compelling reason, on the basis of the biblical texts themselves, to understand the six days of the Genesis accounts as anything other than normal 24-hour days, we are to believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days (see Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation, Question 97 [Concordia Publishing House, 1986, p. 106]). Official members of the LCMS (congregations, pastors, rostered church workers), of course, pledge to honor and uphold the official position of the Synod on doctrinal issues, including its official position on creation." ^ source: www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/the-bible#created The pastor of the church I grew up in also said that we should believe that the earth is ~6,000 years old and anything other than this literal understanding was not Lutheran. He had a PowerPoint presentation of apologetics that featured things like a fossilized hat and gaps in the theory of evolution that scientists address regularly such as missing of some links between ancient and modern species.

[@tayzk5929]

@Curtis MH Yeah sounds very strange to me. I doubt this person is being entirely honest with us/themselves.

[@mitromney]

Though I'm Catholic the reason why I don't accept evolution is very simple. Jesus refers to Adam as a historical person who lived rather recently, and was personally responsible for introducing humanity to the concept of sin and death. Not only is Jesus talking about it as a very plain historical event, but in the New Testament there are very strong analogies from Adam to Jesus and his death. Adam's sin resulted in death's door opening to all, and his (Jesus's) death will cause the salvation's doors opening to all. The concept of original sin, Jesus's death and resurrection, humanity being cursed and restored were always closely bound with young earth creationism to me even though I was young and never even realized such a theory existed. Just from reading scripture and listening to priests talk about Adam, it was obvious to me that he had to be a real person living in a real place that actually existed some time before Noah, who existed some time before Abraham, who existed some time before Moses etc. So when I learned about evolutionary claims that Adam was an allegory and most of history mentioned in the Bible is false, including humanity being created and cursed with death recently and not living and dying and evolving from apes for past hundreds of thousands of years, I immediately dismissed evolution, since at the time I was already a converted Christian and Bible was a much stronger authority to me than science ever could. After all, people can interpret what we see in nature wrong, and they have for millennia. But God knows everything, and his Word is Holy. Only when I got older I learned the claims of both sides I learned to defend creationism as a scientific possibility with actual arguments. I also researched the Church's teaching about this, and though I agree it's fine to be an evolutionist and a Catholic, I still don't think it makes sense theologically and spiritually if we assume Adam could've not been a real person, or even if he was, there still were millions of people sinning, being born and dying before him. We do take baptism to be cleansed out of the original sin. If Adam never existed and never sinned, our baptism is meaningless. And so is Jesus's death, if he is to be second Adam who came to reverse what was broken. Did Jesus not exist either than? I understand that evangelizing is a lot harder if you use creationism as one of the stepping stones, so I just don't share this aspect of my faith when evangelizing. It's But it does make my personal faith a lot more coherent and simple to believe what Jesus and New Testament said about Adam was true.

[@ErickFerraz2]

Jesus never says Adam was the first man. Him being a historical figure and the whole account of Genesis being literal are two separate issues.

[@ErickFerraz2]

I Believe Adam was the first priestly king of the first tribe of humans capable of understanding the concept of god. God "formed man from the ground" and breathed the spirit into him. This for me is the process of evolution to the point we reach a species intelligent enough to receive divine revelation.

[@SuperSaiyanKrillin]

I think I would encourage you to look more into evolution. To believe in evolution isn't the same as believing that Adam and Eve didn't exist - William Lane Craig would be an example of this line of thought

[@ManlyServant]

If Adam is Not Real,Jesus died for the original sin that is started by a metaphorical Guy

[@ErickFerraz2]

@@ManlyServant Adam being real doesn't contradict the current scientific account.

[@caseyjeanchapman]

This is so fascinating. I genuinely had no idea there were YEC Catholics, or that YEC was as widespread as it is among protestants, until fairly recently. I grew up Methodist and attended Catholic schools where our theology, physics and biology teachers both addressed the idea that evolution and the big bang in no way contradict God's work of creation... Studying the various views on the origin of earth and life in college was eye opening but only as an adult have I realized that many Christians are YEC and many non-christians assume we all believe in a young earth and literal seven days.

[@roan2288]

@Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus YEC was never a Catholic tradition. It´s purely a protestant 20th century creation. The Church doesn´t hold and never has held a position on the age of the universe of on how it came into being in a materialistic sense.

[@Solarius1983]

Because YEC is objectively true

[@Solarius1983]

​@@roan2288 wrong

[@husq48]

@@roan2288 That is utter nonsense! By in large, the Church Fathers held to YEC, they were all very Catholic.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

@@husq48 Most of them were OEC.

[@almandinefox5160]

Yeah I was one of those kids raised into young-earth creationism (evangelical). Went to the creation museum as a pretty young kid and loved it. It really seemed like they had an explanation for everything and it was great. As I attended school I got less and less comfortable with the view however, and in an attempt to reconcile my faith with reason I started reading Dr. Francis Collins and C.S. Lewis. The fact as you mentioned that the catholic church doesn't ask me to sacrifice reason has been the driving force of my conversion, which I must admit is something still in progress. Love you work, Trent. You've been a big help.

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

Don't forget that evolution is atheistic in nature, so of course they would try to corrupt your faith in God's creation.

[@fruzsimih7214]

Yeah, I am a European Catholic, and the age of the Earth is a non-issue here, also for Protestants. I just read some of the things in Answers in Genesis, but it's just so stupid. I mean, fossils in high mountains as evidence of the Flood? They don't seem to know that limestone itself is made from fossils that have accumulated on the seafloor over billions of years and were then raised up! (I myself am agnostic about the Flood itself, there may be some evidence, especially in the stories of many peoples around the globe, but the evidence for it are certainly not fossils that are much older than humanity!)

[@scott76252]

@@zadokmotorfreight2423 Not true

[@crusaderACR]

@@zadokmotorfreight2423 Please don't say that again. There are many variants to the theory of evolution, and while some are atheistic, evolution itself isn't. Theories try to explain the "why" something happens. The fact is that something does happen: Creatures change over time. That "creatures change" shouldn't be harmful to your faith. And saying that it is harms others that realize this isn't reasonable to deny anymore.

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

@alonso19989 if what you're talking about is adaptation within a species, then I agree. However, 1.it is genetically impossible for a species to evolve into a more complex species because genetic information is lost, not gained over time. 2. God himself clearly says that he made each individual species according to its kind. So, evolution which is taught by the world is, indeed, both wrong and atheistic in nature. God is God. He has the ability to do what He wants, when He wants, however He wants. And He did. And He told us about it.

[@wingedlion17]

I applaud Mr. Akin here in the honesty of Genesis 1. It should be obvious that the writer is working with an assumed cosmology. However the teaching that God created the world is clear.

[@robertblakeman9978]

Why is he working with an assumed Cosmology if he was divinely inspired? Didn't God know all the facts about the Earth?

[@robertblakeman9978]

Yes, either that or he's full of shite!

[@JustARandomBrotherInChri-zg6ku]

Way overdued reply, but in short, I think God wanted to communicate through the writer with their own language. God has been known to use this pattern of communication a lot. Imagine explaining the big bang theory to the Old Testament people while trying to communicate the story of God's salvation.

[@JohnCenaFan6298]

Its all very clear how exactly the world was created. Within the 7 days in parts. This doesn't seem to cohere with the Big Bang and the way scientists describe how certain water animals evolved into land animals.

[@HolgerSonntag]

​@@JustARandomBrotherInChri-zg6ku Right, the people in the bible were so dumb. And we are so smart.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I have no problem as a biblical scholar with The idea of an old earth and God working over billions of years to create the world. I also don’t have a problem with the idea of species changing over time. However, there is much about the theory of evolution which I believe has been extremely corrosive on many different levels, and has a far greater cost than we realize. One might argue that this has come from more of a philosophical point of view or from popularizers, but it is nevertheless not clarified enough by Christians who do believe in a theory of evolution. Examples would be the way it is assumed that evolution means that there is automatic and consistent progress in the life of human community, and so what is new is considered to be better. Or that morals and doctrine evolve over time, and so the new is better or at least acceptable no matter what it is. Also there is much bad behavior that is excused as being a result of evolution, such as promiscuous sex. It is also held up as being an explanation that gets rid of God. In general, while it is true that we hold to both faith and reason, there is a tendency to concede too much to science in the interest of apologetics. We forget that the scientific enterprise is based on a desire to control and manipulate the world to our own benefit, to master and conquer. This has been explicitly stated in early modern and in modern sources. I have no quarrel with the scientific method as such, but when it comes to the application of science there is much that is in contradiction to the love and care of creation.

[@Rabbithole8]

Evolutionary theory is the antithesis of teleology. So, no it does not hold that the new is better than the old. Whatever biological entity exists now or before is adapted to its environment. Survival of the fittest means the best fit for a particular environment. If an organism cannot adapt to a changing environment it goes extinct. Every present living environment adapted, so every single one is the fittest. There is no value claim made in Evolution. To be sure, certain ideology cooped and distorted it for its ends. However, that does not diminish its truth claim. Biological evolutions is separate from societal "evolution," even when certain parallels can be found such as memes. Dawkins who coined that term also asserts that basing one's morals on evolution is absurd. What he and all reasonable (not always right) people recognise is that the natural world is the following: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, " Hobbes. Moreover as Hume tells us, we can not derive an "ought' from an "is" without supporting the "ought" premise. Science can help us determine what contributes to human flourishing, but we still must do the heavy lifting of working out what a human morality looks like. Also, science is not about control, it is about knowledge. It is about understanding the world around us and ourselves. Not all science is applied science. Even applied science at its best is for our benefit, and for other creatures. Yes, science can be used for destruction. However, Where would modern Medicine be without science? You are also communicating on technology created through science. You make unsupported claims, such as "This has been explicitly stated in early modern and in modern sources." Where? I grant you that, some scientist in the past had bad ideas such as promoting control over the natural world, and there are certainly current scientists and others that promote ideas and goals of transhumanism, for example. Just because there are a hand full of scientist that embrace that, it doesn't mean all scientist do. It is quite the opposite. Most scientists are humanists. What you fail to do is make distinctions between science and ideologies, and between individual scientists beliefs. Most scientist reject what your are saddling them with.

[@R01202]

Truth does indeed have a corrosive effect upon false, but deeply held, cherished fantasies.

[@batmaninc2793]

First off, please, stop referring to evolution as a theory. You wouldn’t describe gravity or germs as theories, would you? I do also hope that you understand that the word, “theory”, is not the same as, “hypothesis”. Secondly, if you think human morals haven’t and don’t evolve over time, then, I’m curious whether or not you think that the, “age of consent”, should be abolished as some degenerates, particularly Marxists, certainly do. Such as CNN staff, “a woman is a woman regardless of her age”, he said. How about another modern-day favorite topic of discussion in the first-world like slavery? Thirdly, it’s interesting that you focus on promiscuous sex, but, not the practice of taking in a single wife and a literal horde of concubines simultaneously. How’s that for being an explanation that supposedly, “gets rid of God”? The, “scientific enterprise”, is, “about controlling and manipulating the world”? Lol; you forget the majority of scientists are also Christians. Try the self-identified New World Order, instead. That has less to do with science and more to do with politicians, governments, and their knee-bending puppets and simps.

[@wardomenergy4991]

@@R01202 You are the perfect example of the hubris to which Marilyn's comment is referring.

[@R01202]

@@wardomenergy4991 Ah yes, the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" apologetic. Nice.

[@candelario4288]

Trent’s initial concern about the costs of holding the traditional Catholic doctrine on Creation reminds me of Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of Americanism, which is the idea that "in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age.” Also, there are no distinctions being made here as to the binding character of the specific “rulings of the Magisterium in the last century.” It’s just thrown out there, all the while disregarding the actual weight of the Church Notes in matters where it contradicts the aforementioned “rulings” or statement(s) that the account of Genesis could be merely allegorical. The idea that this wouldn't affect our Faith is nonsense. Historical Revelation affects our theology, as St. Thomas warns in his Summa contra Gentiles: “The opinion of those who say that it is a matter of indifference what we believe about creation as long as we have a correct opinion of God is notoriously false, for a false opinion about creation is always reflected in a false understanding of God.“

[@jonphinguyen]

Akin is a bit of a modernist so no surprise his position

[@michaeldulman5487]

Akin and Trent are not saying our beliefs about Creation are matters for indifference. Nor is the Magisterium. There are certain non-negotiables imposed by the Magisterium for people who adhere to a theory of evolution. The Church has never proposed for belief de fide the teaching that the universe was created in six days. It may one day, but it has not; and to suggest that the Church has caved into modernism by not requiring people to believe in six-day creation is to suggest something not in accord with the Magisterium’s history of teaching.

[@subcitizen2012]

YEC is protestant fundamentalist Americanism. It's people of our age that try to translate the Bible into an unprovable science. That is a modern notion and practice that also isn't Catholic.

[@subcitizen2012]

@toddbyrd9071 It was protestant fundamentalists that came up with uninhibited literalist interpretation of the bible. If you are Catholic, you are holding to a modern American protestant fundamentalist interpretation. Are you Catholic and adhere to the teachings and understandings of the church or are you a protestant fundamentalist that solely basis your understandings on not only Scripture, but the extremely limiting view that scripture is always and can only be literal? Adjust yourself accordingly.

[@savagemode.]

😂 He didn't said he only believe in modern mode or Old Mode, he said both could be accepted bcz Church doesn't believe it to be faith but rather a scientific thing like Church doesn't totally talk about limbo even though limbo isn't scientific but a mystery which we can give it to the hands of the God.

[@troyschuler186]

I lost my faith as a child because I was forced to choose between young Earth creationism over evolution. I later converted to Catholicism after learning it was less of an issue.

[@lizzard13666]

I find it fascinating that people say they believe God exists, and that God can create Universes, but if He did it recently then THAT is impossible ...

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

​@@lizzard13666that's how Satan is destroying people's faith and sends them to hell

[@Quantum1008]

@@lizzard13666 it isn’t that people lack faith that God could create a universe recently. And omnipotent God could create anything in any way he wishes. It’s just that the overwhelming amount of evidence seems to indicate that he didn’t literally create that way, even though he could have. The evidence is there for us to see, evidence he created, and which we perceive with senses and understand with an intellect that he gave us to make sense of the world. To deny all the evidence around us would lead most of us to doubt our senses in doubt anything we thought we know about universe or anything at all. Now I understand you disagree. And I respect that. I would ask you to please respect fellow Christians who have come to a different opinion on this then you have, especially if their opinion is tolerated by the Catholic Church.

[@littledrummergirl_19]

@@lizzard13666of course God could have made the world any way He wanted to. But he also gave us brains, and rational thought and reason, and a world guided by physics that He set in motion. It is more rational to believe and more likely that the universe is old, than to jump through hoops and ignore material evidence that God left for us to interpret rationally and say that it’s all an illusion and God made an old looking universe for no reason. It’s about choosing the more likely, more reasonable answer. Nobody’s denying that God has the capability of creating a young but old-looking universe

[@lizzard13666]

@@littledrummergirl_19 Actually, it doesn't "look old" at all. That's an assumption that ALREADY requires Telos, and assumes value. What's really going on is that God would obviously have to create a functional universe. A HUGE misconception under Naturalism/Materialism is that EVERYthing would have had to start from zero. But when God created, do you think He would have created a functional universe, or a non-functional universe? A functional universe obviously requires a range of different states of matter in various phases of decay. And underlying assumption of ZERO decay is very problematic, and unproved, and unexpected under many Theist models.

[@krjohnson29]

The issue of evolution drove my brother and I away from the fundamentalist church we grew up in. By the grace of God I found the Catholic church, which does not require such a belief, but my brother became an adamant atheist. Please pray for him.

[@Dcm193]

So god has a perfect plan but praying can change his mind? God also knew how your brother would be raised and what he would believe in and take a interest in. So god set him up for failure all the way back at Adam and Eve? Also evolution is a fact.

[@krjohnson29]

@@Dcm193 Not sure I understand your comment. Do you think Catholics do not believe in free will?

[@Dcm193]

@@krjohnson29 free will is a thing but the added myths in Christianity of a perfect plan is just bs and contradictory.

[@krjohnson29]

@@Dcm193 Well, it is definitely a thick philosophical nest that many generations of people smarter than you and I have pondered. But I think it is evident that the goal of all this, from God's perspective, is love (Mat 22:36-40). And love cannot truly exist without free will. And if there is free will, there's the possibility of rejecting the path set before you.

[@Dcm193]

@@krjohnson29 I know of plenty of smart people through out history who practiced religion. But in this day and age with all of the knowledge you could ever want at the tips of your fingers and people still deny reality because of indoctrination. A religion after so long grabs a hold of you and it bruises the ego when you find holes in the stories. I know that first hand. I have no problem with people who practice religion for the most part but I hate religion and fundamentalist. They are both a plague on man kind.

[@catholiccrusaderdeusvult9949]

I strongly reject evolution and disagree with the pair of you, I stand with Catholic Gideon , with Catholic Doctor Robert Sungenis on this issue. Dosnt make you a bad Catholic if you disagree though I'm still a fan of trent. I know the majority of the evidence supports your theory of old earth, but I can't. A good source is kolbe centre and also Dr sungenus.

[@justinjustinjustin10]

Faith can never contradict reason. So you're disagreeing with yourself. Science all points toward old earth so you're just forming your thought over what you want to be true not what is

[@MNskins11]

@@justinjustinjustin10 Does the first tree come from a seed? If the earth gave fruit to the first tree, why would a tree need to produce a seed if the earth already has the ability? Perhaps the initial moments of creation was a very quick process and not a long billion years drawn out one. Does God create Adam as an infant? Can an infant survive without being cared for? Maybe the apes took care of their mutant conscientious offspring? Or perhaps God created material matter from a matured state? And not billions of years of random purposeful genetic mistakes? ….I’m using reason here, am I not?

[@Colonel63]

@@MNskins11 Good point, I reject evolution also. Can life come from 'non life'?

[@Solarius1983]

​@@justinjustinjustin10 no science supports old earth

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

By the way, I feel like Jimmy's distinction between "asserting" and "assuming" is not very helpful with respect to most of Genesis, because there is no obvious way to distinguish the assertions from the assumptions. The whole thing sounds like assertion. How much we choose to interpret as merely assumption is arbitrary. And if we're drawing lines arbitrarily, we're creating a slippery slope to interpreting virtually anything as merely an assumption based on contemporary worldly knowledge. Notice that this is essentially what liberal theologians do when they argue that St. Paul's injunctions against gay sex are merely a product of his culture and time, not an inspired teaching or even a reflection on an older divine command. There are many statements throughout the Old Testament that seem like assertions, not assumptions, but that conflict with empirical findings. I mean, first and foremost are just the first few verses of Genesis 1. These seem like very central, important assertions of God. I don't think we can easily dodge the conflict by just calling the central premise of the Bible an assumed mythology of purely human origin. Moreover, many of them are referenced or reiterated by Jesus as if they are authoritative. For example, Jesus calls Adam "the first man." This is a pretty big problem, and it kinda irks me when Christians try to handwave it away. As I quoted in my other comment, St. Thomas Aquinas did not seem to accept this pooh-poohing argument. This is why I struggle a lot with this. I'm a recent convert, so it's not like I'm particularly attached to any of this. I studied evolutionary biology and experimental evolution at the graduate level, so I have seen it first hand and I really have no doubt that evolution is possible and that it happens. I can't deny it. And so much physical evidence suggests that the same things I've observed in e-coli are responsible for billions of years of evolution, for all the biodiversity we see today. But once we begin trying to reconcile the Bible with this empirical evidence, it's very easy to draw the conclusion that the Biblical authors were simply mistaken. I can understand mistakes with respect to minor details, but this is the very first story in the Bible. It's literally the foundation of the Bible. I simply can't believe that something like Biblical inspiration exists, and yet it doesn't apply to the very first story in the Bible. If all the details in this story are purely manmade, not inspired at all, why should I accept any other passage as inspired? I'm left with nothing but a rational belief in the Resurrection and the miracles of Jesus. What are the criteria for determining what's inspired and what isn't? If Genesis of all things is not inspired, then what is? It would be easy to accept that maybe some of the logistical details in Joshua are uninspired. But the entire creation narrative? It's literally written as if in God's voice. If the standard is so high that not even Genesis qualifies as inspired, then practically nothing in the Bible can be said to be inspired. If the main criterion should be whether the claim passes scientific muster, this undermines it all in a completely different way, because it leaves everything at the mercy of technological circumstance. Why would God give us rules for life and make some of them non-binding, but make it impossible to determine which ones are binding without centuries of advanced scientific research? This is all very troubling. I would almost rather believe that Genesis _is_ inspired, but that God intentionally lied to us, than accept that the very first words in the Bible, arguably the most important words, and clearly the most authoritative from a literary point of view, were not intended by God. It seems like a recipe for chaos and confusion. I find it hard to imagine how or why God would deceive us about the origins of life and the planet and the universe as a whole, but as with the so-called problem of evil, it's not for me to judge God. I thought at first this was just a leftover habit from my life as an atheist, but I noticed that other Christians seem to be deeply disturbed by this too. Hence, the so-called creationist scientists who devote their lives to trying to prove the Biblical narrative. I think many people are very uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance. It's not just discomfort with not knowing, it's discomfort with knowing two things that seem mutually exclusive. We have so many good reasons to believe the contemporary naturalistic narrative about the big bang, the formation of the solar system, the epochs of earth, the evolution of life, and so on. However, I have gradually become a bit more relaxed about this, simply accepting that it's not for me to know, either. I can _know_ that evolution happens, that the earth has a 4.5 billion year history, that the universe has a 13.5 billion year history, and so on, without asserting that the authors of Genesis were merely repeating human myths that were assumed to be true, and in their normal capacity as humans. I don't know how to reconcile these narratives, but I realize that I'm just a frail human. For all we know, God created the earth 5,000 years ago with the mere "appearance" of a 13.5 billion year history. It's possible that God just launched the universe to begin at 13.5 billion years into its own apparent timeline. That would imply a universe in which macroevolution is happening and will continue to happen in the future, creating exactly the amount of biodiversity we expect, and yet is not responsible for humans. With what we know about the so-called Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, it's entirely conceivable that there genuinely existed a first man and a first woman, and that mankind has been subject to natural selection ever since, with a real potential for future speciation. There are all sorts of unfalsifiable ways these stories might be reconciled. But it's just not for me to know. I'd prefer to just accept everything I know about science and simultaneously accept the Biblical narrative at face value. That sounds essentially like cognitive dissonance, but at least in my experience, there's a way for both things to coexist, even to both simultaneously live at the forefront of one's mind. I simply trust that eventually I will know and understand, provided I assent. Naturally, that's not gonna be persuasive to atheists, since it pretty much _is_ mental gymnastics. But as someone who was very well convinced of atheism for my entire life, it helps me to reconcile Christianity with the aspects of science I can't deny. I never wanted or tried to deny them either. But over the past couple years, I've discovered major aspects of Christianity I can't deny either, and the logical conclusion implied by them basically equals the Christian religion. I think the whole Christian religion logically emerges from those undeniable facts about Jesus. So I can't deny _anything_ about the Christian religion - even if I can't prove every aspect, and even if many aspects conflict with empirical facts of nature that I also can't deny - because it's all one giant, holistic thing. I can't just take a pair of scissors to the Christian faith and start snipping away at it until it fits like a jigsaw puzzle with contemporary cosmology, geology, and biology. So I guess that leaves me in a position where I'm stuck with contemporary cosmology, geology and biology, and simultaneously stuck with the traditional interpretation of scripture. I don't know how both can be true at the same time, but I operate under the assumption that they somehow are, with faith that either God will tell me after I die, or knowing how the universe began will no longer matter to me in heaven in the first place.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

Very good comment! Why do you think the "deception objection" has much force? To me it seems to be based on two false assumptions. Taken these into account, one could phrase it like this, "If mankind once were to do science in a way that would have a total disregard of the Creator and His involvement in creation and it would then come out with conclusions that would strongly imply a Divine deception, God really were a deceiver." This is obviously ridiculous, because why would God even will this kind of science? The two false assumptions are 1. Doing science as if God didn't exist and 2. Doing science as if there was no Divine intervention. The two are obviously false, because 1. that God is is certain by force of reason and 2. that God is very intimately involved in His creation (namely, sustaining it's existence at every moment) is a very strong conclusion of Natural theology as well. I like the Catholic approach to science and faith, but for the aforementioned reasons I don't like the approach the natural sciences have towards creation. If one does science without God and then tries to reconcile it with his belief in God again, of course there's going to be cognitive dissonance, this approach is almost a little schizophrenic. I would argue that the mistake doesn't lie on the "belief in God" side, because that's certain from reason. I know exactly what you mean by the pain of the apparent cognitive dissonance. I particularly hate the gymnastics one would have to do regarding the genealogies (because in two Gospels they are Christ's real genealogies). But I will always come out on the side of Christ, that much is certain. I think much of this dissonance comes from the godless (in the plain sense of the word) science we have. I would be very curious as to how a science looks that incorporates the two certainties that God is, and that He sustains creations very being at every moment of it's being, because these certainties are the conclusion of the metaphysics necessary to do science in the first place.

[@michaeldulman5487]

@TM I admire your honesty and vulnerability, as well as your willingness to wrestle with difficult questions. I don’t mean to complicate things further for you (and forgive me if it sounds like I’m assuming you didn’t know this already), but for me, the fact that there are two creation stories in Genesis (one where humanity is created after the plants and animals; another where humanity is created prior to them) always is a helpful reminder to me that the beginning of Genesis is meant to be symbolic. To your remark about the seeming arbitrariness of the criterion of looking to what the author was inspired to assert (again, idk if this’ll help, but), the Church has not gone and definitively interpreted a ton of Scripture passages, so while there is a rule of interpretation (though it’s, admittedly, a very broad one), you can rest knowing that it is not something that has been abused, and it will never be misused by the Church. Private individuals can interpret things within the bounds of doctrine. Scripture will always speak to us in new ways because it is inspired by God, so if it seems like we’ll never fully grasp it, that’s because we won’t, and that’s ok

[@thatright4985]

Thanks and you're brave for sharing. I think anyone who's never had trouble with their faith is just not paying attention. I've never been atheist because I was baptized and raised Catholic though I attended public schools and therefore learned and believed/assumed evolution and an old Earth. Probably because I was born in the 80s, I've never had real trouble having them both be true. It seems to me evolution is just an extremely slow way God chose to create. It fits the general pattern of God in the bible to reveal Himself and His plans painstakingly slow. I see your point about being unable to accept biblical assumption. I didn't have that problem once I was taught what the Bible is and how it came to be and how we use it in our faith. In other words, I notice a difference in how I view the Bible and some other Christians do. I feel like some people almost view the Bible as this sacred and holy relic that was taken from God's personal journal in Heaven and dropped to Earth. Therefore they expect to find in it all sorts of secret insider knowledge about powers beyond the natural. If one has already a preconceived view like that, I think the struggle is real when you read Genesis. If however you realize these authors are just regular people whom God was with when they wrote NOT for the purpose of giving us some details we're curious about but for the sake of telling us what we need to know to respond to Him, then it's much easier to accept God likes to work in the simple and ordinary. That's the hardest part for me about God. He doesn't care for show and awing displays of His power and knowledge. I kinda want to see that but He prefers the less elevated route, in my opinion anyway.

[@ThatElephantSeal]

I know that this is two years old now, but if it helps Im often very much feeling the same way, partially the reason why I want to dig into these things more, but also partially why it is at times wise to step away and admit a very human ignorance. On the scriptural side though I think it is important to remember that we are talking about the 'inspired' word of God, not the 'literal'. The authors of the many books of the Old Testament came from different backgrounds and viewpoints, and their view of the cosmos and history is alien to the modern reader. God works with the clay he has at hand, and in this case it was hardy men from the ancient Levant. When I read Genesis, certain facts I know are certain: That God created heaven and earth (the visible cosmos) and that he created the first man and woman. Interestingly, most of the great scholars of the early church when interpreting aspects of the Creation story were very nuanced in their opinion, contrary to what most moderns would assume. For example I believe it was Jerome who wrote that the "days of creation" were actually eons of time. "Days" likely being meaningless to a being outside of time. The common historical view was something closer to Old-earth creationism. Young earth creationism as a common view amongst christians is a relatively recent phenomena. It is not unusual to feel apprehensive about this viewpoint from a rational perspective.

[@Tim.Foster123]

I wonder if you think Ezekiel 14:1-11 has any bearing in the dichotomy you see between what God says and what man "observes"?

[@ahoblit]

Does not Christ's genealogy go all the way back to Adam?

[@joelspeaks1372]

Yeah

[@ahoblit]

by adoption @@OldPirate1718

[@danielglazar6811]

​@@OldPirate1718Mary was a daughter of David.

[@ParkJong_Gun20]

​@@OldPirate1718dumb 😂

[@pseudo-dionysiosareopagite6541]

To me it’s just a matter of “do the Fathers know best?” As Jimmy would say. If they do, YEC is true. If they can all believe one thing about Scripture and be wrong, why shouldn’t I just go back to being Protestant? I became Catholic for the ancient Faith, not for the current opinion of prelates who may or may not be holy.

[@pseudo-dionysiosareopagite6541]

The Magisterium was never there to just change things. It was there to safeguard the deposit of Faith. Evolution is not and never will be part of that.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Assyrian Faith has a really fascinating video on St. Ephrem the Syrian and his literal take on Genesis which doesn't assume YEC. Being Syrian, he was one of the few Fathers who had a good knowledge of the original Hebrew.

[@aaronmueller5802]

But if all the fathers were making their analysis of genesis*, that would be because of the science of their day. After all, they also thought that the earth was the center of the universe, or that lightning was a direct act of God, not static electricity. That seems to be the whole point made in this video, that the age if the earth is a matter of science, not of faith and morals. *assuming they all had a YEC view of genesis.

[@tinadavy3990]

Keep your ancient Faith .

[@sacamedeaca]

So basic argument "we gonna loose credibility" Well guess what, Our Lord Jesus Christ gave advise of that. I don´t even care If the world thinks I am a lunatic or a medieval.

[@mr.loveandkindness3014]

I personally think it really hurts the church when so many of its members take undeniably anti-science stances. It doesn't help in selling the idea that one can come to know God through reason. Either way, disagreements are a part of life, and what's most important is that we continue to love and appreciate each other and highlight wherever we find common ground☺

[@AmericanBerean]

Actually, Y.E.C. is not anti-science. In fact, the evidence I see seems more consistent with YEC, and even antagonistic to Old Earth Evolution. A prime example is the numerous finds of dino soft tissue, still soft (though dessicated) and most the DNA identifiable. This seems utterly impossible if it's 65+million years old. several thousand years, sure, but not millions! Well, unless God miraculously preserved it! That being said, I'm still pretty agnostic concerning the two models of origins. Believe whichever you will, as long as God is given credit as the Maker.

[@YiriUbic3793]

A

[@alcarbo8613]

Historically Science is wrong more often then it’s right, so much false Science has been pedaled as fact throughout Human history

[@mr.loveandkindness3014]

@@alcarbo8613 but it keeps refining its understanding. Sure there's plenty of junk science and incorrect theories in history, but because science is a process of omitting biases and making testable predictions, falsities are replaced with knowledge, and knowledge is further understood in greater detail with each breakthrough. Our entire way of life, from cars to refrigeration to phones to medicine to food, it only exists because science absolutely works and produces results. If a god exists that created a universe attainable by science, then understanding it and using it should be of utmost importance. Science is the pursuit of objective truth🙂

[@mr.loveandkindness3014]

@Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus I can understand someone who doesn't accept evolution or the age of the planet also thinking that they are not abandoning science, or simply unaware of the evidence, but sadly it is the truth. Science encourages different models and differing opinions on how best to explain the world around us, so I get that you see being a contrarian on the issue as acceptable, but the models have been tested extensively and there is no direction in which young earth creationism does not fail and evolution by natural selection does not match. Evolution is factual and scientists have the receipts to prove it to your satisfaction if you'd like to learn about it, it is not some unfalsifiable, theological assumption that one could be called a dogma. Look no further than your name if you need an example of that.

[@michaellowe5558]

I am a Catholic and believe a young earth is *possible*. Mainly because there is really no way of knowing for sure, and atheists seem kind of committed to old earth for obvious reasons. I don't think it's helpful for some old earth Catholics to look down on young earthers, or vice versa. God is God. If we as mere men can create computer simulations with instantaneous creation of simulated distance, space and time, there surely God could do the same with the universe.

[@Cerviel]

Young earth isn’t really even “possible” because of radiometric dating as Jimmy said. A young cosmos isn’t possible because of the speed at which light travels, and the fact that we can see events which occur (have occurred) billions of light years away. You seem not to know this so…light years are a measure of distance based on the speed of light, they are that distance which light travels in the time it takes the earth to make one revolution around the sun. Astronomical distances are measured this way due to the vastness of the cosmos.

[@charitybrook6279]

​@@Cerviel and who are we to assume that we can measure such things when God tells us in scripture that we cant... That not even the wisest man ever created has been given the ability to discern such things. Maybe we assume our measurements are correct, but we are ignorant of a great many things and may be missing important factors in our equations.

[@Cerviel]

@@charitybrook6279 except that we can, and have measured such things. We have literally measured the speed of light, and use it to make accurate predictions which do indeed come to fruition. We measure erosion and deposition, then use those measurements to make predictions which come to fruition. We measure meteorological effects, and use those to make predictions. Performing the predictive process in reverse allows us to look at the past because we know the laws of physics are constant. There are things we don’t know, and we have no problem admitting that. However, there is much that we do know to be true. Im sorry if that breaks an essential dogma for your faith. Its not an essential dogma or even a minor doctrine of actual catholicism or any form of Christianity.

[@charitybrook6279]

@@Cerviel just because we think we've measured something doesn't mean we have the data set to interpret the evidence correctly. Thus meaning we have truly measured nothing. If God created Adam as a grown man not why not create the universe to appear grown and still growing?

[@Cerviel]

@@charitybrook6279 we test whether we’ve measured something correctly by conducting experiments. If the results of those experiments don’t match our expectations, then we know we’ve measured incorrectly. Here’s the thing: all the experiments point to us being correct about our measurements. We’ve correctly measured the speed of light, and can thus keep time so accurately that our current economic and GPS models work. We measure radioactive decay so accurately that we’ve created instruments that use it for keeping time, performing medical procedures, and generating power. To suggest otherwise is a denial of clear and present reality, and an appeal toward embracing ignorance. Thus, having measured the speed of light, we KNOW that if an object is at 30,000 light years away, and we can see that object, we MUST therefore see it as it was 30,000 years ago. And so then it must have existed at least 30,000 years ago. In the same way, if we know the decay rate of a particular isotope, and the starting radioactivity of that isotope at time of it coming into existence, we can see based on its current radioactivity how old that isotope must be. I’m not a genesis literalist, so I don’t believe God created Adam’s physical body as a grown man. Nor do I believe that light came to earth before the sun, or that earth even existed before the sun. Nor is any of that an essential or even supported belief of catholicism.

[@reasonandtheology]

Excellent. I'm glad to see some good content on this topic!

[@NeonShadowsx]

Yes, Gideon provided great content on this topic

[@ChristianConspirator]

The church fathers were debating history, and they affirmed against opposition that the earth was less than 6000 years old. The fact that they were not scientists is irrelevant.

[@AndreVille]

With all respect, both Jimmy and Trent are *greatly* overstating the authority of magisterial statements on evolution and the age of the earth. Even though they admit that the Magisterium does not require Catholics to believe in evolution and in an old earth, they fall just short of that by suggesting that the Magisterium strongly endorses evolution and an old earth because science overwhelmingly confirms these positions. Both these premises are highly problematic. 1) The statements of the authentic Magisterium are anything but clear or authoritative. First, the Magisterium does not have the authority to speak on matters of science. This obviously includes questions pertaining to evolution and the age of the earth. Second, almost all magisterial statements since Humani Generis are either incredibly vague (i.e. JPII's famous statement that evolution is "more than a hypothesis") or of very low authority (e.g. local episcopal synods, etc.). So it's not accurate to imply that the "magisterium" strongly endorses evolution, just falling short of requiring assent of faith. For an excellent, balanced survey of the Catholic view on evolution, see Michael Chaberek, Catholicism and Evolution: A History from Darwin to Pope Francis. 2) Jimmy and Trent are also greatly overstating the authority of "science" on matters of evolution and on the age of the earth, as if these were fully settled matters. In fact, the more one reads about the topics, the more it becomes evident that Darwinian evolution (and, to a lesser degree, theistic evolution) is a theory that is full of holes and largely implausible scientifically. Nor are the questions of the age of the earth, the fossil record, or human origins as settled as evolutionists often present them. It's really worth reading the literature from both the creationist and intelligent design camps on these matters. While until recently I thought that the first group, especially, presented a fundamentalist view completely at odds with science, I changed my mind after actually engaging some of that literature. Look up authors such as Jonathan Wells ("Icons of Evolution"), Jonathan Sarfati, Phillip Johnson, or (from a Catholic perspective) Victor Warkulwiz (The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11). I remain agnostic about the questions of evolution and the age of the earth, and am still open to be swayed in either direction. But I get a strong sense that both Jimmy and Trent are overstating their case for the predominant modern view which, as Gideon pointed out in his debate with Jimmy, is highly problematic in light of the testimony of Scripture and all Church Tradition up to the 19th century.

[@leojmullins]

​@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Watch Dr Sungenis and Dr Tours on geocentricty and abiogenesis...

[@6williamson]

glad you're doing this. I like when Trent say something like, "you don't have time, but I do, so I'll take it on" Thanks so much.

[@sacamedeaca]

So what´s the problem? Catholic Church does not condem young earth and creationism. In fact First Fathers of the Church believed that the Earth was no longer than 6.500 years. For me is totally reasonable to think in a young earth and creationsim. The reason some times not to go with that view is ´cause of the fear of being called lunatic, or caged in one tag. I saw the debate with Gideon Lazar and the basic argument of Akin is that the Church does not condem the evolution and leave the problem open. Considering the evidence that Lazar put on the table that argument was weak.

[@issaavedra]

I actually converted into Christianity after realizing how evolution is false and materialism is not the correct view of reality, after decades of atheism and a major in biochemistry. This topic is just a problem if you are comparing two competing theories inside the materialistic paradigm (evolution vs western creationism).

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

We can question evolution but the idea of the earth being 6k years old is total bogus

[@MenwithAutoimmuneDisease-dz9qm]

You sound crazy

[@andrewwaghorn1873]

If Adam evolved as a result of millions of years of death how can we say Adam’s sin caused death to enter the world and why do we need a savior to save us from the result of Adam ‘s sin?

[@kharismabaptiswan1754]

Maybe because there are two kinds of death, human death (separation of immortal soul and body) and non-human death. God bless.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Eden was probably not on Earth, so when Adam sinned, he was not subject to the logic of this world. When he fell, his nature changed dramatically, it's reasonable to assume that God, being a timeless being, wished Adam on this Earth through natural selection.

[@roan2288]

´death´ is here not to be understood as a cessation of physical life but as death in a spiritual sense as a break from God.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@roan2288 No, I don't think that Adam's life would have ended if he didn't sin. We know that we won't die again in the new creation, why did Adam have to die in the old creation if it was kept sinless?

[@roan2288]

@@tafazzi-on-discord Not necessarily, again spiritual death is the break from God which is infinitely more disastrous than physical death. Physical death also shouldn't be viewed as something evil but a rather as a very integral part of creation. One animal killing and eating another is not a manifestation of sin as animals cannot sin, it´s just the way of creation. And the physical death of organisms is also not due to sin and inherent in their nature. Even the nature of humans and Adam is mortal als the immortality spoken of in Genesis is seen as a great gift from God not something human nature has by default.

[@phil3924]

"Not having to believe things that are unreasonable." Miracles could be called unreasonable.

[@MrPeach1]

Thats where I am on the topic also. It seems like we are letting science slowly eat away at the faith in miracles.

[@alcarbo8613]

The theory of Evolution it’s self is unreasonable lol

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Miracles ARE reasonable. If God exists, he wouldn't create a universe that lies to man in every aspect (see the age of the star argument), but He would from time to time show His presence and power to humans.

[@zachsmith5515]

well said

[@animalcart4128]

This is a really bad argument 1. Are miracles possible? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJm0cpxmqpqFqZI

[@bethanyann1060]

Have we forgotten the underlying philosophy that is behind evolution? Evolution was proposed as a way to explain the existence of life without God being responsible for it. Young or Old Earth is another issue, but given the nefarious inspiration behind the theory of large scale evolution should give any Christian pause, to say the least.

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

Exactly. People don't understand how evolution and the big bang theory actually exists. Evolution is a story in which some pieces of evidence fit. But this doesn't make the truth. The same with the idea of Big Bang theory. You can't prove these things because you don't have the technology to go back in time. And for those who disagree with me, I would recommend to study a little how History from books is created. You have some pieces of writings or other stuffs from those times and people create stories where these pieces of proofs fit. I believe that there are some huge mistakes done by the Catholic Church which brings it to a more secular and protestant existence. And evolution is one of the mistakes which brings secular culture in the Catholic Church. That was a really dangerous step took by the Catholic Church. And in time the guy who left the EO maybe will realize the mistake he did.

[@Mish844]

@@sfappetrupavelandrei One of the best, strongest, most well researched phenomena, based on events that we've already reproduced like mutations. You: "some pieces of evidence fit". You seem to be unaware how science works, you don't need a time machines, you need i.e. remains of other species, or study of those existing since some of them are brnach outs. Also, it never occured to me that evolution is meant to be an explanation without god, since if god creates a world with all its laws of nature, then simply he'd create the world with evolution in it, simple as that. Yes, the evolution is a fact, if you have problems with that, all that is left for you is copium.

[@maximilianomadrigal6661]

2 things, first we haven't found life anywhere else other then earth, that shouldn't be happening, we should at least see cellular life everywhere but we don't, personally i don't think we ever will. second life just cares about spreading it's genes while there are lots of strategies and thats what evolution and it's tools explain but none of them necessitates intelligence which is telling that it did.

[@NotFromConcentrate]

@@sfappetrupavelandrei you should look up the history of evolution and the big bang theory. They were not proposed as replacements for God at all but rather like most science developed to understand creation.They have been hijacked and turned into a false religion, but that's what the devil likes to do. Peace my friend.

[@gnomeresearch1666]

I don't see a necessary conflict. All glory to God.

[@CatholicElectrician]

I was raised in the Catholic church but in Lutheran schools, so I was taught young earth at school and just assumed that’s what all Christians believed, but even in fifth grade when we were talking about dinosaurs, their argument just didn’t make sense to me. When I learned that Catholic teaching allowed varying opinions on the creation of the universe, I embraced it almost immediately and felt much more comfortable with the topic

[@floridaman318]

The earth may be billions of years old but i don't think humans are hundreds of thousands of years old. That's really the question here.

[@Raeodor]

Evolution, or the age of the universe is never addressed. Yes im aware the Bible says everything was created in 6 days, but we don't know how long the first day was. Between genesis 1:1-4 could have been 10 minutes, or 300 trillion years. Only after light was divided was the first day done. The hours of each day are never stated either. It's really not relevant nor should it be a point of division for the church. Bask in God's glory over creation.

[@JethroGibbs-iy3fo]

People may ask, “Why does it matter whether God created over 6,000 years or 15 billion years?” Here is the answer: ‘If God created over billions of years, He is most decidedly not ‘good’. In such a view, He would have sanctioned and overseen death, disease, cruelty, and suffering for billions of years - before sin entered the universe - and called His death-ridden creation all ‘very good’.’ (“The Creation Answers Book”) This is the same concept as the quote by Flannery O’Connor: “If it is just a symbol, to hell with it” (referring to the Eucharist). If God created over billions of years (and thus, evidently, sanctioned death, an idea that is completely contrary to our central beliefs about Original Sin), then He is not who He has revealed Himself to be. As Catholics, we hold the belief that if we are really worshipping a piece of bread that is not God, then we deserve to go to Hell, but we do not believe the idea that God created the universe 6,000 years ago (a disbelief which would then mean that God sanctioned death, not humans, as humans would not have existed yet). Instead, as Catholics, we believe that it was Adam and Eve’s decision and free will to rebel against God that brought about death and a fallen world. These two ideas are mutually exclusive from each other (the idea of evolution over billions of years with death occurring before humanity’s Original Sin and the belief we hold about Adam and Eve bringing about death through Original Sin). If anyone has any questions about the specifics of Creationism, I would be more than happy to try and answer them! :)

[@Markusctfldl]

Your thesis is wrong because it makes the gross assumption that the suffering on non-spirited animals has moral significance. Unless you are a vegan, I assume you actually don't take this view.

[@Maranatha99]

Well said

[@bobkeeler7894]

Do Catholics actually worship the communion bread as you mention?

[@Mish844]

I find it amusing how unintentionally make a scripture based argument against catholicism, as if your were an atheist in disguise. Granted, creationists were never sharpest tools in the shed so will reserve some pity for you just in case

[@Maranatha99]

@@Markusctfldl yes, animal death & suffering has moral consequences. That was not part of God's original plan.

[@Shenanirats]

At university, back in 2000, I met the daughter of a Baptist Pastor, she was really on fire for the Lord and was very much into spreading The Good News. She was also a young earther. She dismissed me on the evolutionary view being compatible with Christian theology, mostly becuase I was a Papist, so what did I an my idol worshiping backside know? :^D Anyho, it was rather horrifying to watch her faith just go poof as a mutual friend, a science major, explained in really easy terms how the world was NOT 6000 years old. If that wasn't true, if what she had been taught her whole life about the age of teh earth wasn't real, what else wasn't? Massive crisis of faith. Ended up running full tilt into the secular world of booze, sex and atheism. She was never able, or perhaps not willing, to find a way to fit both science and Christ into her life. The whole thing was so sad. Since then, I think it's been important for Christians to be honest about evolution/age of the earth in terms of real science, and that it's not a threat to our Faith. Our salvation doesn't require a belief in a young earth, it requires accepting Christ.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

That's really sad. For me the strongest anchors are faith in Jesus Christ, and certainty about God by force of reason ans well has the eudaimonistic ethics of the scholastics. Human life seems to be about something by virtue of it's nature, and so with the help of Natural theology and revelation it's abundantly clear that man's actions should be oriented towards God, and only find fulfillment in the intellectual vision of God. Because of this I could not go back to any kind of Atheism, because I would find it impossible to argue that human life is about anything. I very strongly favor a young earth position, but I 100% agree with you that our faith shouldn't be grounded in that. It should be grounded in Christ Jesus "the founder and perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2) as well as the certainty which reason gives us of God.

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

You missed the point. Evolution was never the problem. The problem is that this daughter didn't actually live the faith. You say that some science major explained in really easy terms how the world was not 6000 years? Where can I find these easy terms? Because apparently I can't find anyone who could explain stuffs like this without insulting me for disagreeing with them. And I don't consider myself as a young creationist. But also I'm not a believer of "old Earth". I don't know what happened in the past but also I can't accept something like evolution just because these "prophets of science" say so. And you need to do a lot of mental gymnastic to believe in evolution and also in a God who created the man in His image and died on the cross for him.

[@ExtraVictory]

@@sfappetrupavelandrei The mental gymnastics for combining Evolution and God are much easier than the ones that result from willfully ignoring the proven fact of evolution. Or, if you prefer, how about i just say there's a 99.98% universal consensus from the experts that evolution is settled. Young earth creationism will end up like heliocentrism before too long. Reason always wins

[@kyokasanagi]

​@@sfappetrupavelandreiYou can go see the grand canyon and see the different soil columns from different epochs. That's how easy it is to see that the earth is super old. Even the old testament agrees the planet was already here and started the 7 days of labor to create what it is now.

[@subcitizen2012]

What you described are the dangers of fundamentalist literalist interpretation. It serves to push people away from faith because the justification for the faith it assumes is a false premise, and itself a newly concocted modernist interpretation. This is the origin story for so many atheists , its because of the prominent fundamentalist protestant view in the American context that asserts easily refutable falsehoods as truth.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

Will there be death in heaven? if not, then there wasn't death before the fall either. You take away the whole reason the second person of the Godhead became incarnate, died, and was resurrected. Christ came to defeat death by death. The cost of not believing the fall brought death to the whole universe is the whole point of Christianity in my opinion.

[@ErickFerraz2]

What did Lions eat before the fall of man? I suppose there were no bacteria, fungus or anything else that literally requires something else to die in order to live right? Maybe God had to rework and rethink the whole of creation just cause man screwed up? Adam and Eve were granted immortality as a supernatural gift and lost. We were created to be immortal yes, we are supposed to be immortal, but this wasn't reflected in the whole world. Eden was a miraculous place and so will be the new earth after the resurrection. In the ordinary world things die, they always have died, and they are supposed to die in order for everything to work. Salvation is being free of this cycle, but the cycle was created by God since the beginning.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

@@ErickFerraz2 it's hard for us to understand the world before the fall because the fallen world is all we know. We are the union between God and creation. We are made of flesh, yet are made with a spirit that can reach God and understand the heavens. And through the incarnation and resurrection we are to be made like God. We were made stewards of this earth and through us it fell into death. I don't worship the God of death, I worship the God of life, death is the absence of life and therefore of God. The wolf will lay with the lamb, what will the wolf eat in eternity? Or will animals still kill each other for food even though they have the giver of life united with them and all creation?

[@ManlyServant]

“Whoever says, that Adam was created mortal, and would, even without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema” -Council Of Carthage

[@kharismabaptiswan1754]

Maybe there are two kinds of death, human death (separation of immortal soul and body) and non-human death.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

​@@kharismabaptiswan1754 Possibly, I'd like to hear some scriputal arguments for it. I just see all animals returning to the pre-fall state which includes not killing and eating other animals. If animal death is a good thing, then why would all animals return to grazing? "5Righteousness will be the belt around His hips, and faithfulness the sash around His waist. 6The wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the goat; the calf and young lion and fatling will be together, and a little child will lead them. 7The cow will graze with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.…" Isaiah 11

[@troyschuler186]

The Catholic Church accepting the believe in evolution and the Big Bang was my gateway into the faith.

[@graymann7762]

My friend, the church does not accept those beliefs. Wayward priests do. Evolution is false. There is zero evidence for it. Modern science is a cult which purports lies.

[@HodgePodgeVids1]

@@graymann7762 In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[3] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation,[4] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

@@graymann7762 The Church accepts as valid interpretations both evolution and creation. It's not accepting in the sense of doctrine, like the Church accepts Christ's Divinity as true. It's more like the Church accepts both people that believe that Purgatory is just a process and those that believe it is also a place

[@graymann7762]

@@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577 that's modernism interpretation

[@Iamwrongbut]

@@graymann7762 nah, it’s catholic interpretation.

[@matthewjames7411]

I really want the young earth model to be true but I suspect it isn't. Lord help me to accept the catechism on this. Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn God bless you both. Such defenders of the faith.

[@Solarius1983]

The earth is young

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@Solarius1983 I guess as a Christian I find that hard to believe given everything we know about astronomy, biology, and all of that sort. You have to create an entirely new basis of physics (like the constant c) in order to come to a logically functioning model.

[@RealDianaGarcia]

Imagine I’m teaching you about evolution by using polar bears as an example: a mutation caused their fur to become white, the white ones had higher survival rate in the snow, other colours died out and therefore eliminated from the genenpool. Sounds logical right? Now imagine going to the Arctic, after hearing all this and you find that besides the white bears, all the other coloured bears live and thrive there too. Wouldn’t that be evidence that what you were thought was false? Now that’s exactly what happens when you think about us having evolved from bacteria (supposedly out of necessity) but the bacteria from where we supposedly evolved still lives and thrives.

[@ExtraVictory]

@@RealDianaGarcia evolution isn't driven by anything but time lol. Natural selection, random mutation, survival of the fittest, none of these are "evolution" in and of themselves

[@faithful451]

I'm interested in this argument because I'm honestly seeking the truth after a prompt from my sister. I hear this argument a lot from people against evolution. "If Y evolved from X, why is X still around". Well this to me is incredibly basic to answer, we only have to look at for example cases where species have been separated by a river, volcano eruption, movement of continents etc. They develop different attributes and characteristics. If this can happen even over short periods of decades or centuries, it's perfectly comprehensible that over a period of billions of years the same could happen - an organism that didn't receive exactly the same environmental prompts and triggers, would either not evolve or evolve differently.

[@skylinestudiosrc]

Let’s not forget that Blessed Anna Catharina Emmerich had visions of the life of Jesus as well as of the Old Testament and describes Adam, Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses,… as historical persons.. She even report Jesus telling the Pharisees about the exact age of the earth..

[@ManlyServant]

and she is canonized

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

It doesn’t matter to those who hold to evolution, they don’t actually hold the Bible as inerrant. They except evolution first, and Christianity second. That is why it is so diabolical.

[@justinjustinjustin10]

No she's not. She's a Blessed. And all of her writings are not fully supported yet. So stop lying

[@justinjustinjustin10]

No you're making up your own interpretation. You don't know what's literal and what's not. What's historical, and what's describing metaphorically what's happened. Don't be a Protestant and skew even Bible your own way

[@skylinestudiosrc]

@@justinjustinjustin10 it’s not that her writing are not fully supported yet, it’s that the church did not make any claim of infallibility on her writings. Not the same thing.

[@barbhorses]

Is there a reason why we are going on about evolution? Are you saying you believe animals can change into different species? You don't have to believe in evolution in order to think the earth is older than 6000 years.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

animals do change into different species, we can even observe it today.

[@gabri41200]

The problem with your questions is we don't even have a difinitive definition of species. There is always some exeption for any definition we make. "Species" are man-made concepts we made to identify similar animals, but it's not like there is a rule that stop living beings into changing radically

[@markp1845]

These guys seem to be presenting only two options, young-earth creation or theistic evolution. There is a third and one that I believe is the correct view. That is old-earth creation. Just as Trent and Jimmy view the first three chapters of Genesis as an old timeline so do old-earth creationists. We just don't feel compelled to buy into the evolution storyline.

[@littledrummergirl_19]

Would this be the belief that yes the universe and earth are old like science says, but God literally created Adam and Eve out of the earth instead of them evolving from animals like other species did? I was wondering about this view too, it’s definitely a legit option

[@ParkJong_Gun20]

If you believe in old earth, you have to believe in evolution.

[@markp1845]

@@ParkJong_Gun20 Not

[@MenwithAutoimmuneDisease-dz9qm]

The great thing about science is that it doesn't matter if anyone buys into it in order for it to be true. Evolution exists

[@SaintCharbelMiracleworker]

We are free to believe either. The Church has no binding decision this topic because it is a non-salvific issue. If people want to believe they descended from an ape, feel free. I believe we were created separate from the animal kingdom, God created Man in His Image and His image is not a monkey.

[@MNskins11]

👍

[@jackieo8693]

The main problem I have with evolution is that Darwin set out to prove God doesn't exist and "found" evidence to "support" his thesis. So evolution has been used to promote unbelief. I don't know why we have to have a young earth, however. God is not limited.

[@Cerviel]

No, he didn’t. A simple google search would tell you that Darwin was at least a Christian Theist. He believed in God. He didn’t like religion. He also believed that religion had no place in explaining the natural sciences, and should stick to matters of faith and morals.

[@jackieo8693]

@northernfarmer98 do you have a source for this?

[@jackieo8693]

@northernfarmer98 even if he were a Christian (like Biden is a "Catholic") his evolution theory has been used to deny the existence of God and has contributed to our sick modern society.

[@Maranatha99]

Catholics should believe the Word of God. Catholics, & non Catholics, should believe that Genesis is historical narrative from the 1st chapter.

[@Mish844]

interestingly when talking about creationism, you want us to believe YOUR word, not the one of god. Interesting. Is that croaching narcisism?

[@Maranatha99]

@Mish844 Do you always insult people who don't agree with you? One can disagree & be respectful. You think you could do that? I don't have MY OWN word about anything. I believe God's Word. If Jesus recognized Genesis aa historical narrative, so do i.

[@Mish844]

@@Maranatha99 I see people lying straight through their teeth, unable to distiguish their word from the word of a deity. What is that if not narcisism? Spare me this "I don't have my own word" kind of bullshit, since that is way more insulting than anything I have said. 5yo children are not that gullible.

[@ntmn8444]

Trent, can I just take a moment to give you a huge shout out? Thank you for this channel. It’s one of a handful of channels where I actually am learning something, and you’re not bashing anyone or creating division in the church. I wish other content creators would get that. So thank you for your teachings. This is truly invaluable!

[@secretagent101..]

For what?? Total blasphemy against the Roman Catholic Church & God HIMSELF???

[@ericgatera7149]

The debate was fascinating even though it was clear that both debaters were mostly speculating given that no one knows what really happened in creation. And in this debrief, given that the argument is that the Church and early fathers can/could only weigh on matter of faith and morals, then it is ultimately irrelevant to point out that the current magisterium tip toward evolution, since evolution is neither a matter of faith or morals.

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

There is One who was present at creation and He let us know what happened.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

@@zadokmotorfreight2423he lets us know through reason and science.

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

@@anthonyhulse1248 true. He also told us clearly in his Word. Everything points to God creating and not to evolution

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

​@@zadokmotorfreight2423And yet Evolution is what happened.

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

@StudentDad-mc3pu no it isn't

[@jmctigret]

Example of a scientific paradigm. The Himalayan mountain range and Tibetan plateau have formed as a result of the collision between the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate which began 50 million years ago and continues today. 225 million years ago (Ma) India was a large island situated off the Australian coast and separated from Asia by the Tethys Ocean.

[@jmctigret]

@YAJUN YUAN Do you believe in a flat earth?

[@Mokinono45]

So how long according to science, will it take for the Pacific Plate to make our own giant mountain range against the North American Plate? Why are the Rocky mountains bigger than the Sierra Nevadas? If you look at the plates, the Eurasia plate and the North American plate don't always seem to form mountain ranges where they meet.

[@jmctigret]

@@Mokinono45 it’s not because the earth is 6000 years old. Lol. I was taliking about the Himalayas. Lol. If you want to try to squeeze world history and geology into 6000 years you are entering crazy town where the flat earthers and geocentrism people live as they watch the rings of Saturn formed in 6000 years. Geological view of the Himalayas is old that’s the consensus of scientific community which has been Peer review and majority consensus. Your view is not even minority or fringe

[@jmctigret]

@YAJUN YUAN do you believe the earth is not flat because scientific consensus says the earth is round?

[@UncannyRicardo]

@YAJUN YUAN Genesis when he separates the waters below from those above. Thereby showing that the OT held to a primitive cosmology that had the world/universe inside some hollow vault surrounded by primordial seas.

[@faithful451]

If we're being generous to the opposing argument, it could easily be explained that God simply created everything in a single moment including the light in transit, and all the atoms at their respective ages, etc. If he can create a universe, he can create it in any initial state he wants to. Unfortunately Gideon shot himself in the foot with his "we don't have funding for our models" I'm sure if he had time to reflect he might revert to what I just mentioned above.

[@charitybrook6279]

Right!!! Ive always been perplexed how people of a faith that claims God created man as man and not babe, and woman from his side.... Cant comprehend the universe being born appearing older as well???

[@coreygossman6243]

I see room for both views in Christianity. Its rather sad to see that people in this comments section seem so quick to demonize YEC and blame it for their loss of faith. But what I see here is that it is not the YEC that began their loss of faith, it is their association and entanglement with secular culture that caused them to disbelieve. No, you didn't outthink the church fathers or the YEC in elementary school, you were the subject of immense cultural pressure to accept a dogmatic secular worldview.

[@davidgamboa9567]

Mr. Horn, you are wearing a shirt with a collar. Very nice 👍

[@williamavitt8264]

I prefer the superhero t-shirts

[@secretagent101..]

Akin & Horn has just spoke absolute blasphemy against the Roman Catholic Church & God HIMSELF & you're concerned with earthly shallow things like shirts???🤦And fyi superhero images equals abomination & are demonic, not befitting to a Christian, so thanks for the info, it only strengthens my case

[@PadraigTomas]

​@@secretagent101..Do you also believe that Pope Pius XII is a hetetic and blasphemer?

[@Catmonks7]

Great video I didn’t know According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Thanks guys 🙏🇻🇦✝️

[@easternRomanOrthodox]

Thanks for what exactly, hah? For heresy?? For blunt shameless blasphemy against our infallible Church fathers & Scripture itself!?? The universe is 13000 years old, and evolution is an abomination, so get over it or else join the Protestants. Repent

[@secretagent101..]

Yes, great video promoting heresies against the Roman Catholic Church and God HIMSELF 👏

[@Maranatha99]

It's not what any Cathecismus says; it's what God's Word says.

[@P-el4zd]

It is interesting that one can believe in a, worldwide flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, the eucharistic miracle of the blessed Sacraments, etc., but reject literal six days creation. However, I would agree, you can hold to either a young earth or old earth creationism and be a good Catholic Christian.

[@stefanielozinski]

I haven't watched the whole video yet so this may be addressed, but there's something I find a bit troubling about one of the first arguments Trent makes regarding potential converts "not having to leave their intellect at the door". I find this argument somewhat reminiscent of the (clearly mistaken) assumption that many of the "Spirit of the Second Vatican Council" liturgical destroyers had that if they only removed obstacles from the liturgy for Protestants that they'd convert. That may be true in some cases. But I think we have to ask the question of WHO is converting from Protestantism, and at the cost of who else otherwise may have. Sure, maybe we got some Lutherans. But good luck getting the Eastern Orthodox - who are far more correct theologically - to accept felt banners and clappy music! I think this is a potential pitfall for the creation issue, too. Let me be clear: I am NOT saying those who believe in evolution are across the board bad Catholics. That is clearly false. What I AM saying though is that for every Protestant who struggled with the creationism they grew up with who becomes Catholic due to an openness to evolution, we could also be losing a "fundamentalist Bible thumper" who simply can't square genesis with evolution, theistic or otherwise (something I find in conscience myself that I cannot do). I think if Trent and Jimmy are honest, they would have to concede that those who hold to "modern science" on evolution are as a whole more likely to hold less stringently to other Church teachings (again, not all. I'm not accusing Trent or Jimmy of heresy or anything) than those who accept a view of the Fathers on origins. Where are the young earth creation Catholics who accept contraception and divorce? I can't think of any. So why are we trying to court those people who are /more likely to hold to a progressive worldview/ and often outright push aside those BEST of Protestants who are known to be anti-abortion, anti homosexual marriage, etc? I have heard from creationist Protestants that this is an issue for them, and I've had to personally assure them that I am a young earth creationist and that it is a totally acceptable Catholic position! This should be well known information, but it's not. I always assumed before researching myself that Catholics just accepted evolution in an official manner. I am thankful to Jimmy and Trent for defending my liberty on this issue! I think there is a fundamental distaste people have in regard to judging the quality of the converts we seek to convert, but I think it's perfectly legitimate. Do we want cafeteria Catholics or do we want solid, firm orthodox believers who can stand against the tides of modernism and our dangerous age? Any individual can be a good Catholic, but not every /group/ is equally likely to produce good Catholics, and you can't please everybody. There is a cost to our beliefs, but I think Jimmy and Trent fundamentally invert the weight of those costs. It is evolution that brings with it heavy baggage, not a simple, pious view of creation.

[@wardomenergy4991]

I agree with you. I suggest the "faith" in evolution causes a deficiency in the True Faith. I know many will disagree but we see the results in the current state of our Church from this freemasonic science (you know the kind of science that doesn't follow the scientific method) and universalism. I'm not sure how Catholics can have faith in both. It comes off as "science" being the "authority" then Divine Revelation must reconcile itself to it. This is disordered. Not to mention even secularist are abandoning evolution: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac

[@Andre-ee3wt]

I don't really worry about it, but indeed I'm also more inclined to creationism, and i don't bother others catholics believe in evolution even tho it's only a theory..

[@peter_hobbs]

True

[@lyterman]

I think the issue is that on theological grounds purely from the Bible, one can reasonably believe in young Earth creationism. This is, however, a field that can be evaluated by science, and no unbiased scientist studies the issue and comes out as a YEC. It is almost exclusively in the other direction because of just how overwhelming the evidence is.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

Amen. I majored in biology and chemistry in high school and in college and it was a stumbling block. The scientific consensus authority too often mocks people of faith. They promote relativism in all things except for submission to their authority. Most of their arguments are appeals to their own authority. It's very circular. The deeper I have looked into it, I have found more holes in their story than in the Bible.

[@mythologicalmyth]

Interesting how antitheists like Dawkins don’t agree with Akin, Horn, WLC, and other capitulators. They don’t want God at all but you want to believe that they accept you? Dawkins explicitly denounces theistic evolution.

[@whelperw]

I find Theo-Evo more tangible then Creationism, BUT! I can't help, but feel that what they do is like "I don't believe Bible on that part, but in other instance, I believe what Bible says". And also that part, which I find extremely funny. When TE ask Creationist, do you really believe sky has literal windows from wich water is falling, and they say YES. They immediately start to think Creationalists are morons. They think Creationalists are morons, because they believe what Bible says.

[@mythologicalmyth]

@@whelperw evolution theory is mathematically impossible according to John Lennox. It is biochemically impossible according to James Tours. Stephen Hawking also noticed these improbabilities as troublesome to refuting antitheism.

[@whelperw]

@@mythologicalmyth I don't find "evolution is impossible" arguments from creationists and ID particularly entertaining. Evolution versus Creationism debates are fuking boring, but TE versus Creationism...oh, that is worth watching. And even better, Spherical Earth Creationist versus Flat Earther Creationist, the golden mine.

[@ByzCathCuban]

The folks over at Sensus Fidelium hate the idea of evolution, so that really impacted me. I am more agnostic on the issue now because like was said in this video, it's not faith and morals. I tend to care more about my own spiritual life and the reunification of the Orthodox and the Catholics.

[@richardurban2269]

I am asking Roman Catholics: Why did God write the verse in Mathew 23:9 ”And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.“ ‭‭ There had to be a reason? There is nothing in the Bible that doesn’t belong. Note: Nobody has ever been able to answer this question. God of course knows the future. So why did He write that?

[@ByzCathCuban]

@@richardurban2269 literally both of the people in this video have answered this question

[@richardurban2269]

@@ByzCathCuban I am not going to start searching all the videos for the answer. Can’t you just tell us?

[@ByzCathCuban]

@@richardurban2269 To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word “father” in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word “father.” In fact, to forbid it would rob the address “Father” of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood. But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship. For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8). Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Isa. 22:20-21). This type of fatherhood applies not only to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim); it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21). From Catholic Answers

[@ByzCathCuban]

@@richardurban2269 for the TLDR, St Paul referred to himself as a father in his letters and they had “not many fathers”. Jesus uses hyperbole often, so we need a magisterium to show us what the proper meaning of biblical texts are. Should we actually pluck our eyes out or cut our hands off to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

[@ibanezdudeck]

Trent's concerns are well founded. I have a friend that completely left all religion primarily because his Catholic grade school tried to teach him that evolution isn't real, etc. I still think people have the ability to believe it if they want but they need to admit that they are less certain scientifically and that one doesn't have to believe what they believe to be Christian or Catholic.

[@candelario4288]

You dont really know why he left, in all honesty; these could be excuses.

[@ibanezdudeck]

@@candelario4288 I do know this is a major barrier for him. He refuses to even discuss philosophy with people that deny what most of the world considers settled science. He specifically dismisses Catholicism based on his experiences in Catholic education and the misconceptions of what "good Catholics" MUST believe based on his Catholic school experience. He's a logical, reasonable person and specifically denounces organized religion (much like Dawkins) because he doesn't think that faith and reason can coexist and that he'll be forced to accept things he strongly believes are not true in this world. I've talked to him about these issues so I know at least as well as he understands his own motivations. Whether it is the primary motivation or not, he will not return to faith until he understands how they can coexist and that it's not just a couple people trying to be hand wavy wishy washy about it.

[@RestingJudge]

It's one of the reasons I left my evangelical upbringing. The science is clear & I view American Catholics as way too influenced by evangelicals

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

The part of the scientism of evolution I disagree with is that there is a demand in science classes that evolution is, always has been, and must be *undirected*. This needs to be carefully taught because in the hands of a materialist it will be used as a wedge or cudgel to tell a person of faith that they must deny God and God's agency to accept the science. It is sufficient to say there is no material direction, or none has been detected.

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

I'm sorry but if that friend left religion because of evolution then he never actually was a religious person. The topic of evolution is a minor one for people who live the faith. I feel this one like the idea that we should put modern music in churches because young people find boring the religious services.

[@Silverhailo21]

Fascinating discussion, I really appreciate the clarity that both the debate and this follow-up brought to the issue. I did want to address the last argument that Jimmy brought up and his response to it regarding essences and accidents. Jimmy made the point that properties that were once accidental can eventually become essential, this sounds to me like the theory of emergent properties, or gestalt theory or the idea that the whole of something is greater than the sum of its parts. You can also be referred to as Voltron theory, the idea that the individual pieces of something are brought together in such a way that they form something greater and essential when combined, but not when they're disconnected. For instance, the carbon atoms that are present in the human body if removed and refined would simply just be carbon, not a human body. However, that same pure carbon, if present in food or water and ingested into the human body and so arranged and utilized in a way that is actually healthy for the body, it then becomes a part of the body. It seems that what it means to be human is not merely the collection of material, or the disembodied spirit, but also the largely unconscious system of arrangement and growth and health that makes up not only the body, but also the mind. It's fascinating to study psychology on this point as well and there is a growing interest in how biology and psychology interact. It seems that we're getting into ontology, treading into the very nature of being. Excellent discussion, and I agree, that various forms of fundamentalism whether Catholic or protestant, dismisses or ignores so much counter evidence that it makes many of the claims of Christianity largely incredible if pressed to their logical conclusions.

[@manub.3847]

Now I first had to read up on what is meant by “Gestalt theory” ;) "Gestalt" = visible external appearance (German) corresponds to the words "shape/form" “etwas gestalten” (German) roughly corresponds to: "to design something; to create something" With this background knowledge, the term “Gestalt theory” (out of psychology) may become a little more understandable ;) "The core statement "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" is often attributed to Gestalt theory, which in turn is said to go back to Aristotle. However, this attribution is incorrect, as Wolfgang Metzger emphasizes: "It is... not accurate to say that The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Rather, it must mean: The whole is something other than the sum of its parts. Formal qualities are not only added to the - unchanged - parts, but everything that becomes a part of a whole, "takes on new properties"

[@jamessgian7691]

There are two things that I’d like to address on this topic. The first is the idea of God creating a universe in the middle of the action. Creation is an artistic process. When human artists create worlds they do so with paint or words or pixels or coding. Hamlet, for example, starts with a Prince in Denmark. It has a back story that includes a great many things, including a world where a state called Denmark exists. It is a world of kings and European customs and history. It is a Christianized culture. It is a world with metals and dirt, the earth, and all the physical history the earth entails. All of this is built into the creation even though Shakespeare never wrote a whole world history. He just starts with Hamlet’s father scaring night watchman. The universe of Hamlet must be 5.5 billion years old, but Shakespeare created it 500 years ago. It is a 500 year old universe with 5.5 billion years built in. Now, as strange as it may seem, this universe could have all the hallmarks of a 5.5 billion year old solar system in a 13.8 billion year old universe and it could still only be 6,000 years old. God may have made it old already. Okay, that is a strange idea, and impossible to prove or disprove, but still an interesting one. Next, the science itself. Evolution has been disproven by cellular biology. This is only beginning to be admitted in the field, but, if honest pursuit of where the scientific evidence leads can be followed, Darwin’s basic theory will be overturned. Now, I do not mean that there wasn’t a long history of biological developments in the history of life on earth. I mean that the mechanisms proposed as sufficient by Darwin to account for this history (natural selection, random mutations plus time) are insufficient explanations. These mechanisms are unable to account for the informational capacities or content found within cells, needed for new body plans, or to account for the apobetic and cosentic levels of information science has discovered in cellular biology. Not enough room here for a fuller explanation of this, but read Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer and watch videos of Jim Tour on the origin of life. Darwin being wrong doesn’t mean the earth is 6,000 years old, however, though the actual age is truly unknown and likely always will be.

[@jhoughjr1]

Evolution has not been disproved by cellular biology.

[@walterhartwellwhite8022]

James tour and Stephen Meyer were debunked by professor Dave dude don’t listen to idiots.

[@truthovertea]

This is an amazing take at this topic, than you!

[@jamessgian7691]

Thank you. Fun things to think about.

[@zacharychemacki6234]

I'm a protesant and am somewhat unconcerned with what was beleived historically (I wouldn't say its irrevelant, I just think they could be wrong, so I don't think about it much). My biggest problem with evolution/the big bang is how one should intrepret Scripture if the norms of the current science were correct. If the first chapters of Genesis are poetry, what are they supposed to mean? And what about the list of genologies from Adam to Jesus? (that's how we get the 6,000 year number) Also, if these stories, which appear to be literal, are wrong, won't that lead to a slippery slope? What's to stop us from calling every miracle in the Bible a piece of poetry?

[@gregeichhold8562]

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, and a Catholic cannot accept it as fact. If someone cannot accept a young earth explanation as a possibility, then they don’t have the necessary faith to be Catholic. The problem is, the theory has somehow morphed into fact for many people. Also, if the cost of young earth belief is to be accounted for then the cost associated with allowing evolution to be taught as fact also needs to be considered. That cost being that it leads young children away from the faith because it acts as a substitute explanation for God as our creator. Regardless of whether that is a logical conclusion, it is happening. The only question is, are public schools leading children away from religion by design because it leads to greater adherence and submission to the state.

[@ErickFerraz2]

You need to check what the therm "Theory" means In science. What you thinking of as an unproven idea is called a Hypothesis, and it doesn't mean the same thing. Point being the Theory of Universal Gravitation is called just that, a THEORY. But we don't question it do we? The word Theory doesn't mean unproven. Evolution is almost absolutely accepted by scientists of all political, religious or ideological background. The amount of evidence is overwhelming. Insisting on this point just subject Christianity to ridicule as superstitious nonsense, when it as being stablished for DECADES now that this is not a Faith issue. I just can understand why so many christians are willing to die on this hill. It just drives hoards of people away from the faith.

[@HodgePodgeVids1]

Inspiring Philosophy did a video on YEC not to long ago and he explains that the belief the Earth is 6000 years old is not a belief that was believed uniformly in the early church

[@shadowlinks99]

As somebody who believes that an Old Earth + Evolution are likely true, I agree with your statement. It seems clear in Humani Generis that Catholics must not act as if the matter is settled (eg. not to bluntly say it is a "fact"), but rather must make room for the diversity of beliefs, and all be willing to settle for the ruling of the magisterium.

[@MNskins11]

Everyone knows evolution(or adaptation) within a specie is apparent. What is not, is that one specie can become another specie through genetic mistakes. It’s actually quite stupid. But of course when you add a billion years to these mistakes, I guess it all of sudden becomes plausible. You will never convince me I’m a mutated ape, sprinkled with cosmic divinity.

[@distractionbeast778]

The misuse of information does not invalidate it. IF "evolution" is true, then the cost of denying it is infinitely more than accepting it, regardless of misuse.

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus #15 (On the study of Holy Scripture), 1893 AD: "not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires" Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum #5 (On Christian Marriage), 1880 AD: "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time." Get recked.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Eden is probably not on Earth. Adam and Eve existed, but they arrived in this world through natural selection, they were the first humans God gave a rational soul to.

[@NGAOPC]

I actually moved away from a community in part because of this issue. A strong but perhaps small element of that community (who had a larger role beyond the immediate community), seemed to believe that “properly understood”, the Magisterium “tolerated” belief in evolution, geological time scale, a heliocentric solar system etc - but actually teaches YEC, geocentrism, “Dinotopia”, etc.

[@candelario4288]

Whats your “proper understanding” then?

[@LevPolyasky.]

Because they are correct & ORTHODOX. This community is a true Roman Catholic, unlike you Protestants disguised as Catholics who persist in your heresies even after having been explained what the Popes actually said. Shame!

[@LevPolyasky.]

​@@candelario4288I will explain to you if you show a sign that my comment has been received & not shut down by Akin & Horn who pretend they are Catholics

[@hollypepen4012]

Thank you guys for talking about this. It's a topic that confused me for many of my younger years with no good explanation that made me feel I had to choose between faith and science. Thankfully, early in college, some apologetics friends of mine pointed me to resources that helped me out and ultimately fostered a love of apologetics in me :)

[@easternRomanOrthodox]

Thanks for what exactly? Blunt heresies? According to Scripture as all Church fathers teached, the universe from the beginning to our times is 13000 years, but Horn & Akin believe that the words of our fathers are fallible as Protestant do, and also Scripture itself! Despicable!!!

[@EasternRomanOrthodox.]

Thanks for what? Protestant heresies against Scripture itself???

[@savagemode.]

​​​@@EasternRomanOrthodox.Bro don't be busybody. If she got the answer she looking for which doesn't contradicts scripture why do you act like this. Her sola doctrine beliefs maybe wrong, she didn't came here to talk about it. Have a Nice Day brother & Sister. God Bless. Ave Christus Rex 🇻🇦 †

[@EasternRomanOrthodox.]

@@savagemode. Brother, you have no idea what your talking about? What answers? Spitting on the words of Scripture?? Calling them fables or exaggerations?? As long is you get answers no matter if they are blasphemies it is fine to you? No, take your religion & the Bible seriously & reject Akin & the evolutionist heretics please🙏❤️

[@savagemode.]

@@EasternRomanOrthodox. 😂

[@TheLordUrban]

Many Orthodox Jews also hold young earth beliefs.

[@joelspeaks1372]

Most don't today

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

Many Orthodox Js also crucified God 2000 years ago. They also tried to sink the USS Liberty and did the Apollo Affair and Lavon Affair, and look up Dancing Israelis on Google

[@mashah1085]

What was the Catholic Church's position on the age of the Earth and Universe, 500 years ago (and before)?

[@LevPolyasky.]

That the universe from the beginning to our times is 13000 years old just as the Church fathers taught perfectly according to Scripture. But Horn & Akin who don't even know what the Popes actually said fall into heresy. Since they believe that the Church is fallible like Protestants, let them join them instead of leading innocent Roman Catholics to eternal fire. Despicable

[@mashah1085]

@christsavesreadromans1096 Yep. Naturally Trent Horn won't say the Church was "wrong".

[@LevPolyasky.]

@@mashah1085 But he says it de facto. He's a dishonest modernist like Akin who spews blasphemies on a regular basis

[@LevPolyasky.]

@christsavesreadromans1096 Correct. Scripture & the Church fathers are very clear that the universe is 13000 years old

[@elijeremiah1058]

This thumbnail is confusing because jimmy akins looks like one of the paleontologists in the movie The Lost World: Jurassic park

[@maxxam3590]

That character from the movie is based on a real life paleontologist.

[@elijeremiah1058]

@@maxxam3590 that’s awesome

[@petergreen8477]

I think H.L. Mencken sneeringly commented at the time of the Scopes “Monkey Trial” (a term which he himself minted, I believe) that the Catholic Church hadn’t got round to condemning the theory of biological evolution but he was confident that they would soon do so. His prediction has proved to be mistaken, it seems.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Well done the Catholic church

[@tinadavy3990]

Perhaps we should delve into the philosophical, historical, spiritual, personal relationships, social spheres of those who professed and brought the 'theory', yes 'theory' and origins of Evolution to the fore; and, their possible Agendas that were definitely in mind.

[@subcitizen2012]

"A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language." Don't make linguistic mistakes to make logical mistakes to them assert falsehoods. Evolution a body of proven facts, hence it is a scientific theory. Science and facts are independently verifiable beyond personal agendas. You wouldn't scrutinize the church or its leaders through the ages for their agendas and personal persuasions, so please try to avoid intellectual and spiritually dishonest. Be blessed.

[@Hithereitsme32]

Even if Adolf Hitler said that the sky is blue it doesn’t make the sky pink

[@jacob5283]

"There is no more tiresome error in the history of thought than to try to sort our ancestors on to this or that side of a distinction which was not in their minds at all. You are asking a question to which no answer exists." --C.S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?" "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." --St. Augustine, _On the Literal Meaning of Genesis_ "The purpose of the creation doctrine, then, is not to ascribe a chronological starting point to the world, but to affirm that at this present moment, as at all moments, the world depends for its existence upon God. When Genesis states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (1:1). the word "beginning" is not to be taken simply in a temporal sense, but as signifying thar God is the constant cause and sustainer of all things." -- Bishop Kallistos Ware, _The Orthodox Way_

[@reddawn011]

Thankyou gentlemen for your commentary on Young Earth vs Old Earth teaching and the magisterial position on this.

[@omarvazquez3355]

I would like old earth believers to answer a few questions: Would you say that God is the author of death and has used death and suffering to bring about humans? If so, death wouldn't be the penalty for sin since it's always been here, correct? How would you reconcile the order of the creation account with the big bang? For example, the Genesis Account has the earth and the heavens created first. Then the sun and stars on day 4. Big bang says stars came before earth. Another example. The birds are created in day 5 and the reptiles on day 6. Evolution says birds evolved from reptiles. Thank you.

[@Cklert]

On the 7th day God denotes that man has dominion over animals, fish, and all plants as food. If literal death did not exist prior to sin, why would God permit a need to hunt and for man to hunger? Clearly the penalty for sin was a 'soul death' the denial of the immortal soul into heaven.

[@omarvazquez3355]

@@Cklert thank you for your reply. In Genesis 1:29 God tells Adam and Eve that only the plants shall be for for them. It's not into after the flood that God tells Noah that flesh can be food. There is no animal death until Adam sinned.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

I strongly favor a young earth view, but I think the death that Adam and Eve were experiencing when eating the fruit was a supernatural death (as happens when we mortally sin), natural death is a result of that supernatural death. So I think animal death isn't necessarily a result of the Fall.

[@grantgooch5834]

@@omarvazquez3355 Gen 1:29 does not say "only" the plants are food. 29 Then God said, “I now[bh] give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.[bi] Where does it say only? Nowhere. In v. 28, God tells Adam and Eve to "subdue" the earth and "rule" over the animals. The word for "subdue" in other uses in the Bible means "enslave", "conquer by force", and "sexually assault." "Rule" in this context is the same word used to mean govern like a sovereign or king. This isn't some Disney fairy tail. Dinosaurs didn't eat watermelon. Genesis 9 follows the same structure as the other Mosaic dietary laws: it lists the general category of things fit for consumption and then lists the restrictions (see all of Leviticus 11). 3 You may eat any moving thing that lives.[c] As I gave you[d] the green plants, I now give[e] you everything. 4 “But[f] you must not eat meat[g] with its life (that is,[h] its blood) in it.[i] As footnote [d] says, the words "As I gave you" are not in the original text. The translators have added them in as a stylistic decision. The actual Hebrew is "ke yereq eseb" which literally means "as the green plants/herbs", and the Hebrew translated as "I now give" is "na-tat-ti" which is the same construction used in Gen 1:29, which in that verse is translated as "I have given". So really, a more literal translation is: "You may eat any moving thing that lives. As (perhaps "like" would be more appropriate) the green plants, I have given you everything. But you must not eat meat with blood in it." God is reiterating that humans may eat plants and animals but is now adding the restriction that humans should not eat meat with blood in it. It's not God now changing his mind and allowing humans to eat meat for the first time. This is basically the same format as the Levitical dietary laws. For example, see Leviticus 11:3,4a: 3 You may eat any among the animals that has a divided hoof (the hooves are completely split in two[b]) and that also chews the cud.[c] 4 However, you must not eat these[d] from among those that chew the cud and have divided hooves: God says they can eat any animal that has a divided hoof, but not a bunch of listed restrictions. In Genesis 9, God says they can eat any plant and animal, but not animal meat that still has the blood in it.

[@kevinmiller6443]

There is an even better question for Theistic-evolutionists, and it is rooted in the 4th commandment: " Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. *For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.* " - Exodus 20: 8-11 (Emphasis mine) The 4th commandment clearly states that all of creation was made in 6 days. So the question is this: "If we are going to deny the biblical account of creation as laid out in Genesis, should we also deny the commandments as well?" and "If you are so inclined to save your Darwinist worldview, would you selectively eisegete this one commandment out of the ten?" I understand why the RCC does this (universalism and profit), I just hope that the remnant within the RCC turns the Lord and is saved out from it. Study the scriptures my brothers and sisters so as to not be deceived by the spirit of this world!

[@Maranatha99]

Genesis is historical narrative from verse 1, not from chapter 12. If yom doesn't mean a 24 hour oeriod, then there is no reason to believe in the tslking serpent, the flood, Babel, Sodom & Gomorra, the burning bush... & the resurrection of Jesus.

[@WilliamJackson-by1bb]

Trent and/or Jimmy - I would really encourage you to check out the books and presentations of both Stephen Meyer and James Tour. Stephen Meyer in particular shows the information bearing properties of DNA and it would be very interesting if you would interview him in order to understand his argument against evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. He has very interesting information as to why it is not sufficient. Meyer's most recent book "The Return of the God Hypothesis" is amazing and fits perfectly with the idea of faith and science in harmony

[@subcitizen2012]

Evolution is not the scientific study of the origin of life. That hypothesis of abiogenesis is. Refuting something about DNA, even if verified and factual, would simply further the understanding of what would still be called evolution. Creationism asserts that God created everything, which is therefore an abiogenesis to begin with. Creationism unfortunately primarily serves to confuse the science and the theology. It's best not to entertain the confusion as anything more than that.

[@secretagent101..]

Finally a true Roman Catholic...Good Lord...🤦Despite being a Protestant heretic who believes also in billions of years, on the issue of DNA he's doing a decent job. Let him speak only on this - his expertise & not comment on anything Christian. I am shocked at the blasphemy I see here not only from Horn & Akin but also from all those Pseudo Roman Catholics in the comment section. Apparently, Akin believes that the Church is fallible & modern THEORIES come before the words of God, which according to him ALSO fallible. Despicable. They are leading innocent Roman Catholic souls into the everlasting fire of Avadon. Despicable

[@secretagent101..]

​@@subcitizen2012You are incoherent. No one can figure out what is your position. What exactly you believe - speak directly not in weird scientific terms & isms

[@newjerseylion4804]

God created people through the process of evolution and ensoulment

[@intedominesperavi6036]

Regardless of whether you hold to evolution or YEC, you will have to make some stretches. Creationists have to interpret the data available in a way that might seem quite stretchy for the current scientific paradigm, while someone holding to a theory of evolution needs to do some theological stretches to fit in a historical Adam. The creationist has to stretch science, the evolutionist has to stretch Holy Scripture. In the end, both are doing the same thing: trying to fit Holy Scripture with science. What's simply different is the place one starts. One starts with Scripture and Tradition, while the other starts with science. My preference would go with giving priority to Scripture and Tradition. This remark is not by me, but I find it very interesting: "Without the claims of modern science, nobody would think about reading the first books of Genesis as figuratively." I also think that it's a stretch to say that someone like St. Augustine says that the creation account must not be read literalistically, therefore evolution. As he often does, St. Augustine proposes multiple possible readings. In De Civitate Dei he uses the genealogies as if they were real history.

[@VACatholic]

He is also a very YEC, as he believes creation was instantaneous, and not 6 days. So I'm not sure he's a great person for the OEC people to use, as it seems disingenuous to claim he'd agree with you.

[@lilwaynesworld0]

@@VACatholic He also doesnt agree with YEC he believes the days are symbolic not literal 24 hour days and points to the fact the first 3 days could not be literal days as there is no planet. He’s a view to himself with overlaps to both sides.

[@VACatholic]

@@lilwaynesworld0 If you studied the issue, you'd know he held to that because he thought scripture couldn't contradict scripture, and due to a confusing translation of Sirach into Latin that he worked on, for he didn't know Greek, he concluded that the days must be instantaneous _on the basis of scripture alone_. Thus, trying to then say "well Augustine believed they weren't literal so I can too" would be to horribly abuse St. Augustine, and take advantage of a consideration that he would never have countenanced, and it is completely disingenuous to claim otherwise.

[@jackdaw6359]

@@VACatholic exactly

[@kenfollis5558]

Echoing the Fathers before him, St. Augustine also saw, at his time, mankind as being less than 200 years shy of 6000 years old. They based it on the chronology given in the LXX. The Hebrew OT, thereby St. Jerome, had the chronology, that dated the age of mankind, by his time agreeing with the Jews, at c.4400. If you follow the Greek OT (LXX) we are c.7500 years old. If you follow the Hebrew OT, we are about a century shy of 6000.

[@jim-baron]

Interesting to have a post debate discussion for Akin to save face. Question: how far off should we really believe Luke’s report of Jesus’ genealogy is?

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

It's a complete fiction.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@christsavesreadromans1096 The response of someone afraid of the truth or an alternative point of view.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@christsavesreadromans1096 The Bible is not inerrant that's a laughable dogma that does not stand up to 5 minutes scrutiny.

[@JaySeamus]

Trent, great content as always with Jimmy Akin. I hope you could speak more about the idea that 'Death' is a result of original sin, etc. How some EOs and Non-evolution Believers hold the belief that there wasn't human death (evolution, survival of the fittest), let alone *animal death* before The Fall.

[@catholiccrusaderdeusvult9949]

Eos believe in evolution and the old earth. If you want some names of heirachy metropolitans, archbishops, bishops and eo theologians let me know? I personally reject evolution and I am a young earther

[@Arkangilos]

It is a dogma humans did not die prior to the fall. It is also a dogma that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, so…

[@Arkangilos]

Dogmatic Canons of the Council of Trent: “1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema. 2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,[7] and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.[8] 3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11] Whence that declaration: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;[12] and that other: As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[13]

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

@@Arkangilos EO don't teach this understanding of original sin. We dont personally inherit the guilt but instead the consequences of Adam's sin.

[@Arkangilos]

@@TheLincolnrailsplitt the OP was more than about the EO, and insinuates the author of the OP does not believe that dogma.

[@manuelpompa-u5e]

how about having faith in God and what He says is true? if He can create the universe in days, you don't think He can create the earth by increasing scientific (time-wise) processes?

[@barry.anderberg]

Hey Trent, Eric Ybarra has some really interesting things to say on this topic and about the debate Jimmy had with Lazar. You should have him on the show.

[@YovanypadillaJr]

What did he say?

[@secretagent101..]

​@@YovanypadillaJrYes, what???

[@secretagent101..]

Are you saying that Ybarra is also a heretic???

[@bourbonrebel5515]

@@secretagent101..no one in that conversation is a heretic

[@secretagent101..]

@@bourbonrebel5515 Oh..is that so? I got news for you: Akin & Horn the Modernist evolutionist feminists are the biggest heretics of our time!! Sungenis exposed them, and will release in the coming days another refutation of Akin. Lazar also, and destroyed him in this debate!

[@dave1370]

Maybe have Gideon Lazar on to support his POV.

[@LevPolyasky.]

Explain to me who is Gideon. Because if he's a Roman eastern Orthodox or Catholic & not a schismatic, I support him on that 100% perfect against the heresies of Horn & Akin. I am shocked to find out that American "Catholics" don't even know the basics of our faith. Shame!

[@jdotoz]

​@@LevPolyasky. Heresies? Do tell.

[@MrJohnmartin2009]

I have not yet listened to the discussion so I'm flying blind. If one denies a young earth one must also deny in some way, the numerical value of the biblical genealogies from Adam through to Jesus. By doing so, the biblical promises to Abraham (Gen 22) and David (2 Sam 7) are in some way compromised, devaluing the biblical gospel and emaciating the doctrine of biblical inspiration with the accompanied doctrine of inerrancy.

[@davidmwallace5420]

The inadequacy of the consensus patrum argument needs to be explored and explained more (yes, Jimmy has a blog post about it), if for no other reason than young earth creationists who are "magisterial fundamentalists" are using it to defend geocentrism and other such ideas and heading down a rabbit hole. Oftentimes, as such, those who disagree with them are labeled as heretics.

[@jonphinguyen]

I know a guy who works at Nasa that claims the idea of Geocentrism isn't far fetched. I trust him because he isn't a geo centrist

[@secretagent101..]

Stop labeling others with idiotic American labels & isms which don't mean a thing. According to the INFALLIBLE Church who follows Scripture, unlike you, who persist in your heresy, the universe from beginning to our time is 13000 years, so get over it or else join the Protestant pagaпs👉

[@CatholicSplaining101]

*Arcanum, Leo XIII* “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

[@distractionbeast778]

My major objection to "young-earth" creationism: - Science is never at odds with truth - God = truth - Science, used properly, will always lead us to God and His plan If legitimate evidence exists that the earth/universe are older than a few thousand years, a "young Earth" would be a form of deception on the part of God, who would have created in one way, but left us clues which lead us in another.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

That’s not the problem with creationism my friend, that’s the problem with the antichrist evolutionary theory. The truth is never at odds with reality, and the evolutionary paradigm does not have the evidence to back it up. That theory is based on an ideology, so they interpret all the evidence in light of that ideology. We can explain just as well as they can the layers of the fossil record because of a flood. You must also believe that the Church fathers were morons, because they held to the Christian believes that God actually created us. So you know better than all the Church fathers and scholastics? You believe that it took anti-Christ atheist to enlighten us? That’s the opposite of what a Catholic would believe sir.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

Some points on your objection: 1. Natural science isn't primary in our way of knowing. 2. Theology and Philosophy are primary. 3. Modern science doesn't have a very sound (or Catholic) philosophy. Particle physics for example, which seems to inform most other disciplines, works and theorizes as if there was no such thing as substances. Modern medicine or neurology work within paradigms that lack the immortal human soul, in fact, they largely seem to look for ways of understanding that deliberately do away with it. I think you would hardly agree that the natural sciences have priority in this regard. "If legitimate evidence exists that the earth/universe are older than a few thousand years, a "young Earth" would be a form of deception on the part of God, who would have created in one way, but left us clues which lead us in another." 4. The creation account (and especially the following genealogies and flood narrative) very naturally read as a young Earth. This is shown by the centuries of Christians reading it that way. 5. Following the logic of this argument, there is either a deception on the side of creation or on the side of Scripture. 6. Therefore, this "deception" objection is applicable to both sides, and is rather atheistic in nature. I hope to have shown that it is one that should be dropped for inter-Catholic dialogue. 7. One needs to reconcile either way. One places Scripture and Tradition as primary, another does Science. Hope this was helpful. God bless!

[@jhoughjr1]

@@intedominesperavi6036 Particle physics by no means informs other disciplines.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@jhoughjr1 It certainly does inform chemistry, which informs biochemistry, which informs biology and neurology. And I would also question whether or not those disciplines hold to the existence of substances. But would you say that you see my overall point?

[@candelario4288]

This is like saying that transubstantiation is a form of deception.

[@hatoffnickel]

Fun fact: there is no way to experimentally prove that the speed of light is uniform in all directions. It could be that the speed of light travelling away from earth approaches infinity whereas it approaches 0 travelling towards the earth

[@ingoditrust7784]

Very good point, because the light of speed is central to measurements of distances and durations in astronomy. I recently heard an interesting argument based on the relative duration in given points of the universe. Could it not be thinkable that six thousand years on Earth might equate or at least be compatible with billions of years in very faraway points of our humongous universe?

[@hatoffnickel]

@@ingoditrust7784 yes and no: 6000 years is always the same "amount" of time from the perspective of the viewer. However, Einstein's relativity demonstrates that 6000 yrs for someone traveling at 99.99% the speed of light is equivalent to (3.7 x million x million) years from the perspective of someone on earth Fun fact 2: anything traveling at the speed of light (ie a photon) does not experience time. A photon will travel the entire universe from end to end instantaneously from its own perspective

[@ingoditrust7784]

@@hatoffnickel in school we were taught about c (speed of light), a constant. In recent years I have heard that a) it's next to impossible to really measure c and b) c might well not be constant. If someone were to travel instantaneously to the most distant point of the universe and then being able to instantaneously communicate with someone on Earth, if I understand you correctly, would both people have exactly the same time displayed on their respective grandpa clocks?

[@hatoffnickel]

@@ingoditrust7784 I think I've made myself misunderstood. It is possible to measure c, this is done with Maxwell's equation for measuring the speed of EM waves, and for any given reference frame, c is constant. However, it is only assumed that c is invariant in all inertia frames--we have no means to experimentally prove c is uniform in all directions. I think it was Veritassium or SmarterEveryDay channels that have a good explanation why. You are correct that instantaneous travel preserves time, and this approach would need to bend space (classical fold the the paper in half analogy) as opposed to conventional velocity travel which warps time. Faster than light (FTL) travel the likes of Star Trek use an Alcubierre Drive to move or "surf" space so the craft itself doesn't change speed and thus does not dilate time--theoretically possible. FTL like in Star Wars/Ender's Game/Asimov universes propel themselves to a place outside of space-time, complete their travel where relativity between mass and velocity, distance and time don't exist, then reenter space-time at their destination--not currently understood to be possible.

[@ingoditrust7784]

@@hatoffnickel don't worry, I understand (next to) nothing in these matters, so very grateful for your kind attempt to bring some clarity here. I think most people who have a problem with the Bible version of Creation try to critique the Six Days Account by means of scientific reasoning, which only goes... so far with God. Every miracle, and we are told and shown that there are quite a few... demonstrates that God is not prisoner of the laws of physics, as we are. Also, "with God all things are possible", to me it's simple and correct to accept that God, knowing exactly what would become the physical reality, our immense universe, would have created a working system, not some chaotic one in need of time and transformations. Just as all living organisms need a very complex biotope to exist and function, feed, multiply, adapt in time (to changing conditions), etc. So the imaginary time from Creation to this era is, perhaps, just that: imaginary. God created Adam adult, obviously: no need to watch him being born (out of what, not whom but what) etc. However, with Jesus, God chose an almost human birth (almost, because the Holy Spirit miraculously produced the Jesus-embryo and also because the birth of the Second Divine Person was not the kind to have violated the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady). With God, all things become possible. I think we often forget there is a certain difference between God's capabilities and ours...

[@ochem123]

4:27 You are not supposed to “respect” a false belief; you are supposed to correct it.

[@danielgalvez7953]

When it's said that deTh entered the world through the fall does that mean that no animals died before the fall or that only humans didn't die before the fall. If the former then how do you make sense of that with the millions of years of fossils that predate humanity?

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

So, you think it's great that you share a lack of faith in God's account of creation with atheists and then wonder why many many Catholics don't even believe in Jesus being present in the Eucharist? Check out "Answers in Genesis"!! They have some fantastic videos defending the scriptural account of creation.... using science!

[@enshala6401]

Dude, it is not lack of faith in God that is behind us not using the Genesis account as an Astrophysics textbook. We aren't belittling you for sticking to the 6-day thing. Don't belittle us for believing both that the Genesis six days are not literal, and more importantly, that the Real Presence... Follow JESUS' OWN WORDS IN JOHN 6 ABOUT THE EUCHARIST: 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. He LITERALLY called His flesh MEAT. Sheesh, why is this so hard.... 🤦‍♀️

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

@Enshala you make no sense. I do believe in the Eucharist.... I never said I didn't, so your point is moot. What I did say, however, is that many Catholics do NOT believe in the Eucharist. The point is that if you don't believe the Genesis account of creation, even though there are many scientists who do, how do you expect people to believe that the wafer literally becomes the body, soul and divinity of Jesus? Unfortunately, over half of Catholics do not believe it. (according to Bishop Barron) This is why I've chosen to simply believe the entire Bible. I don't understand it all, but I do believe it.

[@joshuajimenez8577]

Tread carefully. Not taking a YEC position will butcher your Christology (The Lord's genealogy just for starters)

[@samueljennings4809]

@joshuajimenez8577 not necessarily. The biblical chronologies do skip generations sometimes, and their general purpose is moreso to establish heritage. That was common in the time.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Brant Pitre explains that Jesus had cousins not brothers. His video on YT is compelling.

[@shqipebelgjike1274]

you don’t have death before sin. So millions of years is not possible,

[@alexojideagu]

Totally false claim

[@Mish844]

If between reality and bible you pick bible, you are a cultist first and foremost

[@shqipebelgjike1274]

@@alexojideagu what kind of dumb god needs millions of years to create man? When my God said He made it in six days and rested the seventh He meant it. Same as He instructed the jews to rest the SEVENTH DAY, He didn’t meant to rest millions of years, God bless

[@Mish844]

​@@shqipebelgjike1274religious fundamentalists being too slow to realize they accudentally put a perfect argument against their own religion is never going to stop being hilarious

[@allyjohnston3151]

I believe in an older earth, but not in evolution.

[@Dcm193]

We have evidence for evolution. You just don’t want to accept it because it contradicts your Bible. Which has so many flaws .

[@allyjohnston3151]

@@Dcm193 I just find it so difficult to believe that out of the sludge came alligators fish gorillas bison people and so forth. And if evolving why haven't things changed over the timespan, that they have remained the same? It has nothing to do with bible as I have always thought this before becoming a Christian.

[@Dcm193]

@@allyjohnston3151 that isn’t evolution. Maybe you should learn what it is (from credible people) then see how you stand .

[@Dcm193]

@@allyjohnston3151 things have been changing and they are changing this very moment.

[@allyjohnston3151]

@@Dcm193 took that stuff in school, and the teachers won't change my opinion and you will not either, continue believing you are the most wise one

[@ddzl6209]

Scientific reality is all that matters and the theory of evolution itself is not compatible with neither scripture nor with modern science

[@MiguelA.TapiaP]

Evolution is a proven fact, supported by overwhelming evidence in al the relevant fields of science, and has even been directly observed. What do You mean it's "not compatible"with modern science?

[@TheCatholicSamurai]

Seems to me, that the fact that there are strong opinions on both sides, it is wisdom that the magisterium has allowed people to make their own decision on this issue (you guys seem to take it more of a magisterial issue than it is, an argument for silence for either of your positions). It also seems that all the major cost of holding one of the opinions falls on the Theistic Evolutionary perspective. Also, a Church fighting against Progressivism in general, would not have had good reason to alienate so many people on this issue and it makes sense to think that they did not want to change the Church understanding of the age of the world but also did not want to completely disregard modern science. Keeping the possibility alive that the world will see it is foolish in this regard.

[@subcitizen2012]

There are strong opinions on one side and strong facts on the other. The church can thread the needle however it wants because it fundamentally can't choose sides in matters it hasn't already chosen. Also, don't make the mistake of politicizing the church. If the church is combatting progressivism, then it would also need to combat conservatism and anything that else that causes division, including politics itself. Whatever widens the reach and message of the church in accordance with the doctrines is the prerogative. This evolution vs creationism stuff isnt in view of that vision or mission. Be blessed.

[@TheCatholicSamurai]

@@subcitizen2012 There are good cases to be made on both sides. The Church "fundamentally can't choose sides in matters it hasn't already chosen." Nobody can? Maybe I just need clarification on your point there. I did not make the mistake of politicizing anything. The Church is always combating progressivism and conservatism as ideologies but the Church is simultaneously conservative and progressive. Politics is a lost art, one that Catholics should endeavor to enter and improve upon it again. I agree that evangelization is the driving force in our discernment in these matters. Blessings!

[@tristenwilliams1943]

I am Catholic, but I reject evolution purely for scientific reasons. I think the evidence is very weak. Now if evolution happens to be true, that’s awesome, I know our human reasoning can’t fathom every mystery of God. I have no problem either way. Also, on the “cost” of believing it: we don’t pick and choose what we believe to try to win converts. That’s a very Protestant way of looking at it. Whatever is true, I want to believe that, no matter the cost.

[@alexojideagu]

How can you reject it for scientific reasons, when the entire scientific consensus is that Evolution is conclusive? There is no alternative, no scientific paper of any credibility exists for an alternative to Evolution. Nobel Prizes have literally been awarded that support Evolution, as recently as 2 years ago.

[@Mish844]

now there is that american yec brainrot

[@marountayar2831]

How old or how young is the universe? I don`t know and I don`t care... Do I believe in evolution from one specie to another? No, because as G.K.Chesterton said, that missing link which those scientists still mention is still missing. And also, God who created this huge universe out of nothing can surely create humans directly without creating us as monkeys before... So, if someone wants to be called, a son of a monkey instead of a son of God, he or she have my blessing...

[@ochem123]

3:42 People are excited to get saved without having to make any sacrifices. Evolution does not logically follow from the available evidence. Do a deep dive on the actual evidence.

[@Hamann9631]

You talked about costs of beliefs. Apparently believing the secular humanist creation mythos has cost you your integrity. You lied about whether the early chapters of Genesis describe the real earth and sky. The early chapters in Genesis do not describe a huge snow globe. You accuse young earth creationists of being the only ones who have some explaining to do. Everybody needs to explain their position.

[@Zimisce85]

Many thanks Trent, this discussion was very useful, even the philosophical point touched by Jimmy Akin towards the end. Could please make a similar video with the title "Should Catholics be antidemocratic illiberalists?". I guess such position is not very strong in the USA but here in Europe is quite common among traditionalists for historical reasons (namely, because of the official position of the Catholic Church at the time of French Revolution and later), as much as antievolutionism (I dare say they are basically the same people).

[@LevPolyasky.]

Thanks for what exactly? Heresies?? Absolute blasphemy against the infallible Church teachings & Scripture ITSELF??? Either you educate yourselves on what the Popes really said & repent, or else join the Protestants who believe the words of Church fathers are fallible💁

[@mythologicalmyth]

IF YOU BELIEVE Patristic Consensus, Saint Paul, other authors of Holy Writ, and Aquinas are mistaken on divinely inspired statements on literal 7-Day Creation, why would you believe they are correct on gender orientation and affiliated behaviors? You have crisis of consistency.

[@mythologicalmyth]

@Horror Hawk Pay attention Horry! Six times from Genesis One it says The evening and the morning are a day up to 6-days. Now you have to reconcile how He created LIght and separated it from Darkness and called it Night and Day, the evening and the morning, the fist day............here it comes........THE FIRST DAY with no SUN, Moon, or stars yet. Some say true Christians know that Christ is the Uncreated Light and that in Perfect Eden when Christ walked in the midst of the Garden that the sun could have merely been a nice light in addition to the Uncreated Light. Either way, you have a dilemma that God created evening and morning without a sun yet still decided to call them evening and morning. THERE HAS NEVER EXISTeD THE BELIEF that an evening could be an eon, age, or vast expanse of time. An evening is simply literally just what it says. Morning is when the Light comes back around to expel the darkness. Take your time. BTW. try not to say what God "cannot, cant" do. You did that quite a bit. You said God cant have evening and morning without the earth's sun, yet He said explicitly and clearly that He did make Light for the evening and morning before the Sun.

[@mythologicalmyth]

@Horror Hawk AS for the magisterium...well PACHHI MAMA can guide you into all existential demonic truth. It is absolutely inconsistent for anyone to say that the material sciences transcend the Holy Scripture and therefore the First book of the bible is wrong. Claiming Genesis is not literal is an apology, accommodation by cowardly part-time Christians wanting to appear smart in the face of their inteligentsia persecutors. (I defer to Bishop Irenei of London's recent "Origins" monologue as an example of clergy wanting to appear as a "cool kid" science lover.) They are not interested in compromise. The anti-theist have become mechanistic because they do not like the evidence against materialist nihilism. ASk Stephen Hawking on pg. 94 of ABHOTAS. Clergy that capitulate to nihilism are cowards and have little faith if any.

[@tinadavy3990]

EXACTLY... OPENS UP A DEEEEP CAN OF WORMS.

[@joshdb142]

I feel like young earth is much different than evolution. The evidence may point to an old earth but I think a scientist is doing exactly what Paul was doing when they say evolution is true. They are assuming based on the evidence we have. Their assumptions can change tomorrow with new evidence. Just like when Paul was dying and he realized he would not be here when christ returned. We should be careful to assume that anything is true that new evidence will change our beliefs. The truth doesn't change

[@ajmeier8114]

I wasn't expecting Trent to be on the side of the step brothers of Jesus. I'd love to hear some evidence to back that up. Assuming this also means he thinks Joseph was an older man

[@watermelontreeofknowledge8682]

Seems like that the only reasonable explanation-there is mention in the Gospels of ‘James the brother of Jesus’ and we know Mary was ever-virgin.

[@ajmeier8114]

@@watermelontreeofknowledge8682 The same word is used in scripture to refer to kin and not strictly brother

[@ajmeier8114]

@YAJUN YUAN What?

[@grantgooch5834]

@@watermelontreeofknowledge8682 We don't "know" that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The Catholic Church merely asserts that as fact. The text clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. In order to keep to their dogma, Catholics have to argue that "brothers and sisters" really just means "cousins". See Mark 6:3: 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. The context is clear that these are direct familial relations. Jesus is obviously Mary's son, but suddenly Mark's usage of "brother" and "sisters" mean male and female cousins? Paul mentions "brother(s) of the Lord" at least twice. Once in Galatians 1:19: 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother. Here James is given the descriptor "the Lord's brother." It clearly does not mean "believer" as Catholics like to assign to the usage in 1 Corinthians 9, since the Apostles are obviously all Christians AND Peter is mentioned and not called "brother of the lord". I guess it could mean "cousin". Regarding 1 Corinthians 9, 5 Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?[c] Here "the Lord's brothers" are again given their own descriptor. It clearly does not mean believers, since Peter and the other Apostles are obviously Christians. They are separated from "the other apostles" likely because of their familial relationship to Jesus. Catholics have to assert that both these usages by Paul really just mean "cousin of the Lord" and not actual brother. Josephus also mentions James, the brother of Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_ book 20, chapter 9, 1: Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James I guess Josephus also means that James was just the cousin of Jesus too.

[@Jasho-Beam]

I am just amazed how anyone could assume that Paul made a mistake when he said "we who are alive and remain will be caught up" and that he needed to correct himself. This brings into doubt everything this brother says. I mean if you are going to mistake something so simple there has to be a root problem with your spiritual understanding of scripture. But then again this guy could be a Jesuit intent on subtly destruction of the faith of the unwary?

[@AnonYmous-sd4lq]

@30:40 I think you're jumping the gun here. I'm not convinced that anyone's faith is based on evolution or non-evolution, or young-earth vs old-earth theories. I've not met a single person who came to faith based on those principles, but there are many who lost their faith based on those principles. That alone should tell you something. I understand that's addressed immediately after this statement, that your bigger concern is what if their children go to college and see opposing viewpoints and turn away from their faith... If parents believe these things, that shouldn't stop them from teaching it to their children. Truth is truth. The truth is that the theory of evolution is not compatible with faith or reason. There IS much evidence out there against evolution. The reason that people take the time to "explain away beliefs" isn't so much because there isn't other evidence out there, but rather because they're not experienced debaters as you are. We've made science a god, and our society and culture worship it. This is true even in Catholic circles. We will pay for our idolatry. Someday truth will be revealed, and we will see that much of science today is based purely or largely on statistics, including evolution and old-earth theories. You can take that as "explaining away" rather than presenting evidence if you want, but that still doesn't mean the evidence is not out there.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Much evidence against evolution? Really? The nonsense pumped out by ICR for instance doesn't cut it.

[@AnonYmous-sd4lq]

​@@TheLincolnrailsplitt The fact that DNA is degenerating ALONE disproves evolution entirely. And there is much, much evidence outside of that. Science is no longer science, and many scientists and the governments that control them are no longer willing to accept truth. So they lie. And they've been lying for decades. We have to rely on the "scientific" studies that are supposedly peer-reviewed in a system that benefits only those scientists who adhere to the government doctrines. You can't trust science, anymore, unless you do it yourself OR unless it comes from a scientist who actually risked something to publish his findings.

[@alcarbo8613]

Amen to that, Evolution would have been killed decades ago if it wasn’t the only way for the largely atheistic science community to explain away God

[@-GodIsMyJudge-]

Amen!! May God bless and keep you and your loved ones! 🙏 I would add that one day people will realize that most of the popular "scientific" worldview was predicated by Babylonian religious philosophies, Hindu religious philosophies and ancient Greek philosophers who studied it, Alchemists, Freemasonry more recently, etc... Basically all the ancient mystery schools and their successors. Also, when the fruits of these ideas are examined it's clear that they are not of God. They have resulted in Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, Eugenics, dividing Christians, apostasy, eroded belief in miracles and many other parts of Holy Scripture, etc... (and that's just off the top of my head)

[@thomasjefferson6]

This is a very interesting discussion, yet so short as to leave the whole subject fallow. Trent Horn should invite a knowledgeable young earth creationist on to have a discussion (e.g. Jonathan Sarfati) and delve deeper into the whole issue. A number of points: 1) The YEC position was the position of the Catholic Church right up to the time of Charles Darwin. There is not a single Church Father who taught that Genesis 1-11 was "myth", "poetry", "ahistorical", or anything other than actual history, even if some argued that the first three days of creation were not quite like the following four. The great Catholic theologian Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) taught that the days of Genesis 1 were literal days, so this belief did not originate with modern Protestant Young Earth Creationism. On the other hand, the Catholic evolutionist St. George Jackson Mivart, although initially a critic of the efficacy of natural selection, moved farther and farther away from the Faith as time went on. 2) St. Luke traces Our Lord's genealogy all the way back to Adam, so he obviously understood Adam to be the first man, just as is taught in Genesis. 3) Our Lord Himself taught that male and female have existed since the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6), not billions of years later, as evolutionary chronology demands. 4) St. Paul bases his whole argument about the headship of man in I Timothy 2 on the historicity of Genesis 2-3 and the Fall.

[@r.a.panimefan2109]

I spent time in yec. It could be true sure. As God told jobwe we're not there. However genises is not the only text in bible. That deals with creation. I.e. the word Yom. It means day. But it can also represent a period of time as well. Let's look at something. The bible is meant to be read and understood by all generations. Let me ask if u were the devil. And u wanted to get people to leave church. I'd put the church in a situation where they defend a lie based on misunderstanding Take the flat earth issue. Even y.e.c. will tell u its dmging to reputation. I'd make the people leave the church by lieing that it's this way or the highway

[@JohnEButton]

No, Catholics (or anyone for that matter) should not embrace positions that are inconsistent with our best understanding of the universe and th world

[@ManlyServant]

the bible is clear on this,it was 6 days,moreover,it was 6 mornings and evenings,period,God repeat it and INTERPRET his own word in exodus 20:11 and still say it was 6 days "we should not embrace positions that are inconsistent with OUR best understanding of the universe" yawn,such a self-righteous statement even jesus is a yec,he takes 6 days creation LITERALLISTICALLY Mark 10:5-7 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. " But FROM THE BEGINNING of CREATION, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. " FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@ManlyServant horrible explanation... Even to the point of labelling christ as YEC? heresy at its finest

[@ManlyServant]

@@Tzimiskes3506 Heretic!? what about vast majority of all church fathers who believe it?,you want to throw them all to the deepest pit of hell?,cant you read it yourself!? he TAKES the creation of male and female in Genesis 1:26 LITERALLISTICALLY Genesis 1:27 God *CREATED* man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; *MALE AND FEMALE HE MADE THEM.* Mark 10:5-6 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your *hardness of heart* he wrote you this commandment. " But from the beginning of creation, *GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.*

[@ErickFerraz2]

@@ManlyServant Nothing about that point to young earth. God creating the earth doesn't contradict natural process. We understand at length how clouds form and condense into rain. That doesn't contradict with saying that God makes it rain. Stop thinking in this "either/or" mentality.

[@JohnEButton]

@@ManlyServant Actually, the story doesn't say that necessarily. Was it 24 hours?