Nope, the Geological Column is Not Well-Proven in the Terrain

The Most Amusing Attack on Evolution I've Ever Seen
SciManDan | 28 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVQkd8dp8w

5:33 What about genes and even combinations of different genes that cannot be explained by coming from small accumulating changes in other genes?

TheWetheriliWitch

@TheWetheriliWitch

In other words... mutations

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch The problem was when mutations cannot do it.

For a certain fish, a blind fish in Mexican caves, I think, the retina has ten genes, and because of one mutation on one of them and two on the other, the retina doesn't work, the fish doesn't see.

That's three mutations away from the complete setup for ten genes, and completely useless.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl Whats useless? Those mutations occured and propogated because the fish lives in constant darkness. Therefore developing the structures needed for vision wastes precious resources that are scarce in a cave environment, making those mutations very beneficial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch The structure needed for vision is there and is wasting resources.

The eyeball is there, the retina is there, it just can't see.

The thing is, a configuration that's three mutations away from a complete configuration of ten genes for the retina, that configuration is useless as far as seeing is concerned.

I'm sorry, I forgot the reference, it was a debate on Quora ten years ago, and that account has been closed, so I can't go back and check in it.

If the ten genes started building up slowly to makng a retina capable of seeing, they would have been wasting resources long before they could contribute to seeing.

6:40 Rock layers are dated ...

They didn't use radiometric when starting the narrative, though.

1) Radiometric. Extra argon was trapped in the Flood which solidified lava quickly. Or, both potassium argon and uranium processes were sped up so that the mud after the Flood could dryp up more quickly. Mud problem and heat problem cancel out.
2) Consistent order. That depends on "rock layers" ... the thing is, shale comes in many different ones of those, as a material, and so does sandstone. The land fossils usually come in one layer and so the "period" fauna actually reflects the biogeography of the pre-Flood world. (The sea fossils come in different layers, as they were at different heights in the pre-Flood sea or sometimes where it inundated pre-Flood land).

7:04 and radiometric dating

The big bluff.

TheWetheriliWitch

Not really if it can be reliably repeated over and over and over again

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch Key word reliably.

CMI has quoted a quoteable quote about how Evolutionists treat aberrant radiometric dates.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl What?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch Here is the text:

Underpinning everything, of course, is the theory of evolution and its passengers. As the archaeologist Professor Brew put it, ‘If a C-14 date fits our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out of date", we just drop it.’

This article:

How long have Aborigines been in Australia?
Published 27 Jan, 2006
https://creation.com/en/articles/how-long-have-aborigines-been-in-australia

footnotes that quote to:

Fully referenced in The Revised Quote Book, Creation Science Foundation, Sunnybank (Queensland), 1990, p. 23.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl Creation Science Foundation doesnt seem like a very good source, and regardless, theories are made around evidence, not the other way around.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch "Creation Science Foundation doesnt seem like a very good source"

Do you believe they could accurately quote the archaeologist Professor Brew?*

If not, that seems like paranoia about them.

"regardless, theories are made around evidence, not the other way around."

Why?

And what exact relevance to this discussion?

* footnote:

Probably:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Otis_Brew

7:46 Indeed. In California la Baja it seems that the "late" Cretaceous land fauna was flooded by "early" Palaeocene marine fauna, not the least decapods.

8:11 You are basically grading "early" or "low" by your view of what was earliest in fauna, like Ediacaran only containing bacteria and similar.

9:27 I'd go with habitat for land fossils.

The assemblage zones of Karoo are side by side in the terrain. And that means that different habitats could be buried side by side, and give different "assemblage zones" (local subdivisions of for instance Permian or Triassic) simply by containing different fauna.

9:35 Mixing would not be apparent in land habitats, though.

Sure, a T Rex could be washed 500 km away, but if so would not appear today as a recognisable T Rex fossil. If a T Rex fossil looks like an assembled skeleton, presumably it was buried in situ.

9:40 Rabbits would be a land habitat, and trilobies a marine one.

9:43 Men would not have lived with dinosaurs in close quarters any more than we do now with Safari fauna.

10:05 Disagree with Hovind here. Sortings during the Flood, we would usually see just the top layer, or possibly some underneath that if the top layer was worn off later in the Flood.

10:45 Where they lived.

[SciManDan is presenting the fossils as sorted by when they lived, which between the interpretations is begging the question]

11:40 their position within rock layers around the world

Similar habitats result in similar layers. As similarity is defined by fossils contained.

11:52 often using radiometric dating where appropriate

Meaning, some radiometric dates exist, that contradict, like the radiocarbon ones collected by Armitage, but those dates are somehow inappropriate ...

St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

Catholicism vs Evolution · St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

The Argument for God That Changed My Mind
Actually Catholic | 6.VIII.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xilMR5kSQE

6:26 Noting that you switch between tertia via (argument from contingency) and now, when you object to infinite regress, as you should, you borrow it from prima via.

Railway carriages without a locomotive or with one is like the unmoved mover or lack thereof.

Apart from Geocentrism, an atheist could reply "but can we be sure they are all in the same train" or even "that they aren't all locomotives".

The series of changes in a wooden log burning to ashes has as first mover fire, but it's one fire of many fires. That's the equivalent of "the waggons are not the same train"

Heliocentric versions of Celestial mechanics tend to imply that the movers while never unmoved are also never purely passive, since they themselves exert some action by inertia (on themselves) and gravity (on each other) and there is no movement where this is completely subsidiary under a more general movement, like we Geocentrics see the Daily movement. That's the equivalent of "all the waggons are locomotives".

Apart from the text version "manifestum est et patet sensibus aliquid moveri, utputa sol" which I am sure that I have seen, even if I can't trace it online, St. Thomas confirms this was what he thought of in the Question whether God is one.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Prima Pars, Q 2, A 3

Versus:

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
Prima Pars, Q 11, A3

The first point of the three goes back to Q 3 on God's simplicity, where this is established in a way at odds with modern physics:

First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (I:2:3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.
Prima Pars, Q 3, A 1

St. Thomas presumed, as per our senses, that Earth and bodies on Earth, are in fact absolutely still. Which remains valid in Geocentrism, also apparent to our senses.

9:28 The train is not as such helping the Kalaam.

St. Thomas never mentioned the Kalaam, at least not in the five ways. And the locomotive of the train can have been pulling it since forever, including in circles. Precisely as God could have had a coeternal universe in which He had always moved heaven around Earth, instead of doing so just since creation.

Either way, the Geocentric position involves that God has done this so many times now, we cannot presume His power to be ending. Hence "unending power" in Romans 1.

And, obviously, the train metaphor belongs to Prima Via, so to Geocentrism, even if your main argument is Tertia Via.

You are saying that the single most fundamental fact about reality that anything exists at all is the one thing that has no explanation while continuing to demand explanations for absolutely everything else

This is not the worst one can get.

The most fundamental fact is normally the basis for all explanation.

Explanations and proofs both have this in common they can't regress to infinity. At some point one has to come to a primary which cannot further be analysed.

That's why I'm perfectly fine with answering an Atheist asking "explain how God can be omnipotent" as if asking for a mechanism, that God's omnipotence isn't the result of a mechanism involving any more primary explanations (and certainly none of the type science usually is talking about), but is the fundamental explanation for anything about the universe.

Objection four, the half concession. Even if you get a necessary being, why call it God? Why is it personal? Why is it good? Why does it care? Why is it Jesus rather than an impersonal ground of being or a brute mathematical structure? This objection is correct, and I think apologists are dishonest when they wave it off.

This is why Prima Via interpreted as Geocentric is superior to Tertia Via, with or without a Prima Via interpreted by a Heliocentric.

One could say, the first three ways point to "matter and energy" which Atheists are not denying.

They may say the chair is contingent, but the atoms it's made from aren't, or the atoms are contingent, but the energy quanta they are made from aren't.

Just as one might say that with Heliocentrism, the "first mover" is a multiple, Earth and Sun moving each other.

With Geocentrism, the Prima Via provides a daily spectacle of a feat of power by something or someone who handles all this power with sufficient delicacy for stars in the sphere of fix stars to stay in place, relatively to each other, apart from minor adjustments like "parallax" (misnomer of the phenomenon on the Geocentric view).

One can say that with Geocentrism, the Quarta and Quinta Via join with the Prima Via.

As in "argument from design" (yes, that actually is one of the five ways).

And, unlike the flagellum of the bacterium, visible to the naked eye since the beginning of Creation.

Catholicism is More Literal than Modern Protestantism

Including than a moderately conservative one, like the Holding family.

Suzanne Martser's Self-Defense Course Episode 5: Apocalyse When?
TektonTV Redivivus | 7 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj7iTp9beoM

Sorry, but St. Thomas would have flunked you on both verses.

But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat
[2 Peter 3:10-12]

Will literally happen, but ...

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth for ever
[Ecclesiastes 1:4]

... meanwhile Earth and Heaven, while being very affacted by fire will remain in place because ...

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 21:1]

... God will be, through that fire, recreating Heaven and Earth.

I think you will find the appropriate Question and Article in Supplement of the Third Part of the Summa, where one part is dedicated to Judgement and Resurrection of the Dead.

Genre isn't quite as important as you try to make it, neither of the statements is non-literal because of the genre. And how Apocalyptic literature is supposed to exclude the Geophysical is beyond me. It's at the opposite end of the Bible story to Genesis 1, which obviously also involves Geophysics.

NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

Calling out Conspiracy Theories That Aren't Theories, But Real (Featuring the Basham Case, not all of the video) · NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

And for a certain reason, I think it's someone who's French.

Two comments, he left.

I'm not replying to him. I'm exposing him to you.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

I

@hglundahl "What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?" Is that a serious question? If you aren't prepared for being a parent it affects more than just you.

Also, just bringing up the opposite doesn't negate the benefits. Just because you CAN survive without planning doesn't mean you can benefit with planning.

"One has to improvise?" How does one improvise a situation where you are lack the maturity, finances, or support needed to raise a child? Hurry up and grow older, get more money, and build a network?

"How awful to certain control freaks" Are you really this ignorant or just trolling? Is it wrong to plan a vacation? Is it wrong to plan for retirement? How about planning for a house? Would it be wrong to plan for a child's education?

I start to think you have serious mental health issues if you see a problem with helping people prepare taking on the responsibility of raising another human.

II

@hglundahl "You know, child spacing can be done in other ways than contraception, like abstaining during lactation" Wait, so now you're okay with helping people plan? I thought you were against that?

"Plus abstaining during Lent, Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays before the evening, perhaps Wednesdays too" Or you could use contraception. I sense you're against certain forms of birth control. Is there a hidden reason for that? And why during Lent?

"I don't quite see how your comment isn't a slur on many children in poor families" Wow, you really are a miserable person. What does being poor have to do with this? Are you against Planned Parenthood because they help people finance contraception? Is all this about how you don't like birth control methods other than celibacy?

I have made a pretty certain clear statement in the previous post I'm overall against Malthusianism, not just for white people (though they are disadvantaged if doing that in their countries and letting in others to replace).

Malthusianism is a trap for the population, and a person who contracepts when young will often face loneliness when old.

It's also a trap for young people who for some reason are in a precarious situation, as more old people are competing for their company. And less of them are available to keep the old company. Especially in the kind of situations so attractive to the old, of being some kind of mentor to a young person.

In some cases, the persons are not even legitimately young, someone is just stamping them as immature.

The fact of being poor doesn't change that. One should help poor people raise their children, without being overlording, one should not help them or anyone else contracept.

NinjaMonkeyPrime seems to think poor people would be better off without children. Wrong.

I am therefore making a kind of Thomistic case for the Catholic teaching against Malthusianism. It's evils have been observed with sense experience, not just guessed. Nor just deduced from the practises being banned by one's religion.

Overall birth avoidance should go with sexual abstinence.

And Contraception has a tendency not to stay with child spacing but go on into full blown Malthusianism.

I am not against the kinds of child spacing that take some effort and are therefore less likely to become Malthusianism.

Lactation is in itself an inhibitant on new pregnancies, while it lasts, but one can enforce that by abstinence.

Lent is a penitential season. Wednesdays and Fridays are penitential days. Saturdays are meant to prepare for the Lord's Day.

Keeping these abstinences will sometimes make the coitus coincide with the fertile period and come with "more volume" so likelier to get pregnant. It will also sometimes make it coincide with the infertile period, without this being the main motive for abstaining the other times around it. Overall, this will not have an effect of Malthusianism, but of child spacing. More months between the pregnancies. I very obviously am OK with that as long as the means are correct.

Prepared for being a parent, or not ... how it can eventually affect the child has so much more to do with some surroundings' reactions to the supposed immaturity than with the possible immaturity as such.

Also, just bringing up the opposite doesn't negate the benefits.

I wasn't unprovokedly bringing up the opposite. NinjaMonkeyPrime may have some case of Alzheimer preventing him from recalling what he previously said.

I keep track of it thanks to keeping the blogpost from yesterday.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

Helping people plan parenthood is an interest in population control. It seeks to control the population of unplanned parenthood. Why someone would find that nefarious speaks to some serious mental health issues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?

I asked what was wrong with unplanned parenthood because of his obviously thinking it an advantage that the population of unplanned parenthood be controlled, i e subjected to Malthusian measures.

How does one improvise a situation where you are lack the maturity, finances, or support needed to raise a child?

Before someone's maturity becomes an issue when raising the child, the child will probably have been already quite some years older than newborn.

Finances, well, it costs in many countries 1 million (I think 1 million SEK and so 100 000 €) to raise a child up to the age of 18. Obviously, it would be total Malthusianism to limit child bearing only to couples who have one million Sweish crowns ready when the child is born. This is an issue which can be repared as things go along and usually is.

Support ... well, some older people are way more supportive over a 20 or even 25 year old playing the mentoree, contrary to "call no man father" over supporting a 15 or even 18 year old having a child. That kind of preference is obviously evil. And it comes from their own Malthusian past, they don't have sufficient children or grandchildren to supply them with young wanting their advice and approval.

Just because you CAN survive without planning doesn't mean you can benefit with planning.

I think he meant "can't" ... which makes me think he's French or some other nationality where the end consonants of English words aren't pronounced.

I was not the one saying planning was per se wrong. He was the one pretending that populations with unplanned parenthood need to be controlled. He was the one confessing to be a control freak, I was not confessing to a preference for chaos over order, I just prefer chaos over death and infertility.

Is it wrong to plan a vacation?

No, but it would be wrong to cancel a vacation because the plans are disturbed and one has to improvise.

Is it wrong to plan for retirement?

If the plan is cutting expenses on children and investing the savings in one's old age, yes, that's very wrong. That's the horrible choice three or more generations have been making and ruining Western society by. It's obviously always right to plan for retirement by having children.

How about planning for a house?

I prefer a society in which houses can be obtained somewhat cheaper and also inherited (I'm against inheritance duty).

Would it be wrong to plan for a child's education?

Only if you make the existence and validated realism of the plans a precondition for allowing the child to live with his or her parents. It wouldn't be wrong, but it would also not be immediately neeed. And school choices (other than homeschooling out of principle) should ideally be left open to when the boy or girl is well or ill in his school he's sent to without specific plans.

... if you see a problem with helping people prepare taking on the responsibility of raising another human.

For those who want to raise another human person, another man, pro-life charities exist. Pro-life policies can be enacted. A pro-life metality can be cultivated.

I strictly only see a problem with helping people to "take responsibility" for not doing so when not being prepared, by either killing or contracepting.

There is nothing at all hidden about the fact that I am Catholic, and as to Catholic pro-life values, I had them before my conversion.

I didn't adopt them out of obedience to the Church after having previously been "pro-planning" in the sense that PP is. I was attracted to the Church, as already Christian and already holding these values, and inheriting them from my mother. Because I didn't see many other alternatives which also upheld them. Anglicans had been fairly pro-life (as in banning contraception) at the Lambeth conference of 1920. In 1930, they were "pro-responsibility" in the evil sense that NinjaMonkeyPrime supports. I had been aware of this newer policy within mainstream Protestantism, not indeed before I was baptised, but before I opted out of Lutheranism to become a Catholic. I count it as apostasy.

And yes, that goes for some number of Neo-Himerite or otherwise non-Trad Orthodox as well.

I start to think you have serious mental health issues if ....

If I'm an actual Catholic, he obviously means. This is a way of persecuting Catholicism. Without needing to say that that is what one is persecuting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Transfiguration
after First Vespers
5—6.VIII.2026

In monte Thabor Transfiguratio Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Catholicism vs Evolution

Catholicism vs Evolution · St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

The Church, Darwin, and the One Question Still Open
Actually Catholic | 4 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5fokJ7zolM

2:15 I think you misrepresent Humani Generis.

Here is the quote:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

Pius XII didn't simply tell Catholics "investigate the science" he said: whether from science or from the Bible, see if it's probable or possible or not.

So far from being a blanket acceptance of Adam's bodily evolution, it's an invitation to discussion behind closed doors ("on the part of men experienced" = excluding non-experts, a condition no longer possible since non-experts have been dragged into the question) and the discussion can obviously both argue and even conclude that no, it's neither scientifically probable nor theologically possible.

In a case from 1830, there was a condition on submitting to a future decision of the Holy See in regards to how to interpret Vix Pervenit. The corresponding phrase here has often been taken as that, but Pius XII doesn't say "future" unlike the dicastery in 1830.

I think I have a right to reject the possibility from the previous decision on Session V of the Council of Trent.

Obviously insofar as I can prove that a bodily birth of Adam from non-human parents is incompatible with the traditional view of God's goodness before the fall and therefore with the fall.

2:51 "researchers converging"

Independently of each other? Not certain. Independently of a common framework, both ideological and in academy logistic and institutional? Certainly not.

"John Paul II" was in 1996 (if you got the year right, but you probably did if it's a different speech from the 1992 Galileo speech) scamming those in the Church who still held him to be Pope and to be obeyed as such (so, excluding Sedevacantists, Palmarians, Conclavists and FSSPX).

Anyone who thinks he's an actual saint needs to get him a credible excuse.

3:25 What God in the abstract can, given the relation between secondary causes and the primary one, is one thing.

What God actually did is another.

For the Galileo case, yes, God could given His omnipotence have chosen to act exclusively through inertia and gravity on the level of stars and planets around stars, and God could have created a Heliocentric universe. This doesn't argue that He actually did.

Because, Romans 1 says God is showing off His attribute "unending power" in some phenomenon visible with the naked eye and unmistakable. Which turning the universe around Earth would be.

And if the factors are gravity, inertia and God's action independent of and added to both, Geocentrism cannot be excluded, and that is also what we see.

To return to the primary and secondary causes, a thing can be a secondary cause (like the daily movement of the universe around earth) and still have only the primary cause as its own cause. Otherwise there would be a regress into infinity within secondary causes, which is what precisely we cannot have for Prima Via to work.

There may be similar or even weightier reasons to reject an "Adam whose body came from evolution" ...

3:43 "the document that binds ordinary Catholics"

Oh, CCC § 283. One reason to reject as non-Pope the "Pope" authorising that "catechism" ...

4:30 There is.

Nearly directly in Trent Session IV.

"It decrees, that no one ... presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers;"

But each and every one of the Fathers, while differring on detail, some denying there were six literal days, preferring a single moment, each of them was Young Earth Creationist. Therefore Trent Session IV is binding to Young Earth Creationism.

Again, Trent Session V. Adam was the first man. There were Neanderthals, but insofar as Neanderthals were men, which by now is amply proven, they were not before Adam.

This does not directly conflict with Gap Theory or Day Age theory insofar as you place all of the Anthropocene within the generations of Luke 3.

But by now, there are very good reasons against such scenarios, which are less likely than the standard Evolutionary one and also less likely than the Young Earth Creationist one.

Evolutionist views of the "emergence of man" (as per CCC § 283) require other views of the fall than Trent Session V authorises and requires, first three canons. Under pain of anathema.

And given datings of skeleta, accepting Deep Time but not the Evolutionist view is basically impossible.

Conor Foran

@UrielAngeli147

I think the Kolbe center has some answers to these, even if I don't support their strict literalist seven day position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@UrielAngeli147 They actually do support young earth creationism.

I'm doing parallel worok to them.

5:13 "Aquinas" distinguishes "how does this come from that?" (science) versus "why is there anything [rather than nothing]?"

Where exactly so?

I did not catch this distinction in the quinque viae.

Why is there anything seems to refer to Tertia Via:

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

However I think the question "how does this come from that?" is involved very much in Prima Via:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

For instance, not in an endless regress of moving cause behind moving cause ... by the way, I have seen one sentence given as:

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion, like for instance the sun.

The word "creation" is actually not even mentioned in the Five Ways / Prima Pars, Quaestio 2, Article 3.

5:50 OK. Adam was engendered by humanoid creatures of roughly our anatomy, but as non-human obviously without speech.

How does Adam's soul, directly created by God, fare in such an environment?

Look up feral children!

So, given Adam's soul is an image of God, but being raised by beings without that kind of soul is a hindrance of expressing it, the Evolutionist scenario involves God committing an act of cruelty against Adam before he sinned.

Try to solve it by giving him "kind of parents" who could speak? You have just denied he was the first man, instead. In 1950, this option was not open to any theologian, and of those who took the previous one, some committed cruel acts to boys growing up. Look up Henk Heithuis. That kind of thing did not happen in Italy, where in 1962 or preceding years an Ottaviani had been planning to give the "future decision" by defining de fide that Adam was created like the Bible says. Among the episcopates who blocked this was the one where Henk Heithuis's malefactors were not being punished by superiors. The Vatican II has been called "The Rhine flows into the Tiber" and BeNeLux is clearly Rhine league at the council.

6:14 So, Adam could have had two progenitors who were not human, and he was human?

See previous for the cruel absurdity of this.

[To be continued? Well, someone has deleted the comments after the 4:30 one.

Update on YouTube Hiding Comments
Jun 2, 2026 | Anthony Repetto
https://oaklandthinktank.medium.com/update-on-youtube-hiding-comments-b11e212c0769]

Calling out Conspiracy Theories That Aren't Theories, But Real (Featuring the Basham Case, not all of the video)

Calling out Conspiracy Theories That Aren't Theories, But Real (Featuring the Basham Case, not all of the video) · NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

Answers in Genesis is a Conspiracy Ministry
Creation Myths | 4.VIII.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NB0hDAWKQY

9:39 For Tides Foundation, I could not verify beyond plausible deniability.

For Clinton and Gates, check here:

HILLARY CLINTON AFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROGRAMMES
https://press.un.org/en/1999/19990210.pop701.html

New name for Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health
https://hub.jhu.edu/2023/10/25/william-h-gates-sr-institute-for-population-and-reproductive-health/

Check this bit:

The institute is also unveiling a refreshed 2023-2030 vision, mission, and strategy synthesizing its strategic priorities to form five interconnected Global Programs, alongside its cross-cutting gender equity work:

Research, measurement, and data monitoring
Policy, advocacy, and community-building
Best practices scale up
Next generation leaders, and
Demographic futures, population, and environment

What was the last one again?

Demographic futures, population, and environment

I think at least two of the three very clearly do have an interest in population control, and this means you have no business calling Mrs Basham nuts

9:50 That Clinton and Gates promote Planned Parenthood is pretty obvious, and if Tides does so too, the plausible deniability disappears.

That kind of thing is an interest in population control.

I

shassett79

@shassett79

Counterpoint: it's actually in the interest of reproductive choice, which is well correlated with all sorts of positive outcomes if you're not being some weirdo who sweats and curses whenever trends indicate growth in non-white populations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

hglundahl

@shassett79 I don't think any population can grow from aborting or contracepting.

But if it could, through integration in the world people like the Gates try to build, it's the wrong way to grow.

The old fashioned way of simply having children when you marry is perfectly OK, for non-whites too, in case you want it in explicit terms.

shassett79

@hglundahl Is English your second language? I'm wondering how you could possibly reach the conclusion that I was suggesting that abortion doesn't end pregnancy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 Is it your second language, or did you flunk logic?

No, it's actually my third language, but I seem to know it better than you ... because I don't do "dog whistle" exegetics to the point where an actual statement is hidden behind the supposed innuendos.

Both contraception and abortion are making the babies of the couple fewer. You have so far not helped to explain how that could help a population grow, except by integration into a world that persecutes decency.

shassett79

@hglundahl It's OK if you don't read English well. I'm not shaming your deficiency; I'm just trying to understand how you could be so wildly incorrect in your interpretation of what I said. But if you're so inclined, employ your amazing grasp of language and logic to point out the aspect of my comment which suggests I believe that birth control "could help a population grow."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 "if you're not being some weirdo who sweats and curses whenever trends indicate growth in non-white populations."

The phrase "growth in non-white populations".

shassett79

@hglundahl If you honestly think I was proposing that contraception increases growth in non-white populations then you really do need to brush up on your study of English.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 OK, what exactly did your phrase mean?

Perhaps it's the word "indicates" I stumbled over.

II

Creation Myths

@CreationMyths

Dude. You need to get a grip.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CreationMyths You know, there was this other video of yours where my comments kept disappearing.

Someone (not saying you, not saying not you) thinks I need to get out of the business of talking and into that of listening to your likes.

No thanks. Those people have stolen enough of my years already.

Creation Myths

@hglundahl I think you need to 1) sort by newest, and 2) touch grass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CreationMyths I really don't know what you mean by "sort by newest".

As to touching grass, some people bent on pushing me out of commenting publically are also pushing me out of decent leasure.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@evilgingerminiatures

@hglundahl don't blame Dan as nine times out of ten its Youtube and other folks can report comments and disappear them for a while

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures Possible.

But shouldn't I get a notification "your comment has been flagged" in that case?

I haven't blamed nor exonerated him, I've asked.

If lots of people did flag, either Dan has some horrid followers, or "lots of people" in this case was my old foe "NinjaMonkeyPrime" who argues it's a bonus to control unplanned population.

Nah, sounds too anti-gypsy to me. Too anti-hippy. Too anti-people, overall, except those who plan everything or are "responsibly planned" which quite a few of us aren't and the rest mostly didn't turn out quite according to plan.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@hglundahl I have never had one & I get mine reported all the time

[Update on YouTube Hiding Comments
Jun 2, 2026 | Anthony Repetto
https://oaklandthinktank.medium.com/update-on-youtube-hiding-comments-b11e212c0769]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CreationMyths If "sort by newest" refers to order of comments under your video, like "trier par les plus récents" as I see it, I did that.

The problem persists.

Under a comment of mine, there are six comments to it, I answered five of them and the answers are not there.

b)

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@CreationMyths I am even older than you & all my long life I have come up against people on the far right have keenly even eagerly anticipated a Malthusianism population collapse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures And then there are people who are concerned about one.

Whether you call us far right for being against abortion or not.

III

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

Helping people plan parenthood is an interest in population control. It seeks to control the population of unplanned parenthood. Why someone would find that nefarious speaks to some serious mental health issues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?

One has to improvise?

How awful to certain control freaks!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Invoking "serious mental health issues" also argues a control freak.

In other contexts one who cannot handle unexpected outcomes of debates, but has to put them down like wildfires by suggesting the opponent is a madman.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@NinjaMonkeyPrime yup, its long been understood that spacing pregnancies is good for a woman's health mental and physical & that having a baby every 9-12 months is ruinous in many ways especially in a backward country which is pro natalist but does not give a tinkers cus about the resultant children post birth

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures You know, child spacing can be done in other ways than contraception, like abstaining during lactation.

Plus abstaining during Lent, Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays before the evening, perhaps Wednesdays too.

I don't quite see how your comment isn't a slur on many children in poor families.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@@hglundahl Yes, but less reliably

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures I did not say "child limitation" I said "child spacing" and that's fairly reliable.

Sufficient for health.

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

@hglundahl You do realise that women are human as well and therefore have human rights like bodily autonomy? So if a woman wants to limit the number of children she has that's hers to chose.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures With due means, not undue ones and not involving breach of contract.

Contraception and abortion are criminal means, tending to malthusianism.

11:40 I'm sorry, but I did not hear Megan Basham complain about population control against white people.

I heard her complain about population control tout court.

Which I think is a pretty correct assessment, like when Fujimori allowed doctors to through force or deceit, forget which, sterilise Quechua speaking, so obviously non-white, women. Not the current president of Peru, but her father.

12:05 "This is the Antisemitic Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory"

Oh yeah ... when she didn't actually mention Jews?

YOU are the one claiming that attacking population control is some kind of attack on the Jews. As far as I can see, your words are more directly Antisemite than Megan Basham's are.

I

shassett79

You should probably acquaint your self with the phenomenon of "dog whistles" because they're everywhere in conspiracy-related thinking. It turns out you can communicate all sorts of things to a targeted audience w/o explicitly saying those things, and this is actually very common among such groups.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 Have you heard the phrase: "some people detect dog whistles even if there are no documented dogs they whistle to"?

shassett79

@hglundahl I haven't heard that phrase. Did you make it up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 I wish I had, it's a good one.

shassett79

@hglundahl Returns literally zero results in a search engine, but OK

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@shassett79 shadowbanned, I met it on the internet

II

Mr Markers

@HarryTeasley

Most of the people out there concerned about population control are white nationalists. Look for the folks telling Americans to have more babies: also white nationalists.

And while you get a lot of white nationalists supporting Israel, and making a big show of hating antisemitism, that’s a lie. They believe war involving Israel will bring about the Second Coming, so they want to support that happening.

Being able to draw the association is not hard. I think he did a bad job of it, took the wrong road to get there, but he’s not wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HarryTeasley "Most of the people out there concerned about population control are white nationalists."

How do you verify that statistics?

By inflating the number of "white nationalists" in the group through "dog whistle" exegetics?

In fact, telling people to get more babies isn't bad, white nationalism or not. So, you are doing publicity for white nationalists, apparently.

AND ... just because Hagee is an Evangelical and Answers in Genesis are Evangelicals doesn't mean they are pushing for a war involving Israel.

Evangelicals aren't all that united.

III

EvilGinger Miniatures Ltd

Nope, but given the great replacement theory developed out of the Nazi occupation of France during world war two and the bitterness left by the Algerian war even if it has older roots and only got its current name recently. The theory sees all non whites and a threat to whites & would class the Jews as non white even though Jews have been a part of European culture time out of mind as they where a part near and middle Eastern culture for far longer.

The definition of white is also conveniently flexible. for these people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@evilgingerminiatures I highly doubt Megan Basham could actually even get along with French Algerians rooting for OAS.

I'm probably one of the few who like both.

It seems you are more familiar with OAS than with the US pro-fertility movement, which involves Alveda King and very strong anti-Nazis and anti-Racists like Lyndon LaRouche, doesn't mean OAS defines them.

And you might want to tell me what the connection to the Occupation was.

12:17 She also didn't mention "the Western Civilisation" precisely as Lyndon LaRouche didn't when calling out Fujimori (the dad) back in the day.

The Clinton's aren't Jewish, even if they are pro-Jewish.

You could have spared me the knowledge there was some Jewish connection to the Clinton foundation, if indirect.

And what about Bill and Melinda?

"Bill Gates was raised in a Protestant Christian family and has no documented Jewish heritage."
[Melinda Ann] "French Gates, a Catholic, attended St. Monica Catholic School, where she was the valedictorian of her class."

So, no, not Jewish, however sufficiently indifferentist to have a Catholic / Protestant mixed marriage.

I looked up a result where Gates and Hirsch appear together:

"Before the Rothschilds, Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, there was Baron Maurice de Hirsch."

Again, this is also not a direct tie between the Gates and Judaism or Jewish community.

So, calling out Gates and Clinton Foundations for population control is Antisemite exactly how?

As to the Tides Foundation:

"The Tides Foundation, which backs several organizations involved in anti-Israel protests on college campuses and beyond, is facing scrutiny from the House Ways ..."

They are accused of Antisemitism for being pro-Palestinian, in itself a somewhat bad logic, but that hardly makes calling them out for involvement in population control an act of Antisemitism.

From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me

Assorted Retorts: Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo · Phil Stilwell Responded with a Paper. Answering the Abstract · Continuing to Answer Stilwell's Paper [1 through halfway through 5] · From Phil Stilwells Assessment of Me · New blog on the kid: This is Not a Response To Phil Stilwell, It's a Denunciation

Lundahl makes his most defensible concession when he says:

“As to the area where I really am subjective, perhaps it is one in which objectivity is not attainable.”

... But this concession changes the conclusion. If objectivity is unavailable, Lundahl cannot use private discernment as objective evidence that the Holy Spirit spoke.

It doesn't change my conclusion in the least.

I was not claiming to publically demonstrate the Holy Spirit spoke to me. If the Holy Spirit prompts me to give 50 c. to a fellow beggar, what I need in order to do that is to have the 50 c., not to convince Parish Priest, Bishop, Pope, Secular Authorities that I absolutely could do nothing better with 50 c. and even so needed a specific permission from the Holy Spirit to actually give the 50 c. AND then got it.

There are callings where someone has to assess if someone else is prompted by the Holy Spirit or just being a dumbass about himself. I am not pursuing any of these callings. I'm not standing before a monastery in order to become a novice, and I'm not standing before the gates of a seminary in order to study for the priesthood.

His interest seems too heavily similar to that of a shrink who wanted to poke into what he thinks I have decided or failed to decide.

What I have decided is to write, and both talent with words and knowledge of subjects are such that this decision is not totally whacky unless backed up by the supernatural.

What I've failed to decide is what I have left others to decide, namely when they will start treating me as an actual writer instead of attributing to me claims of prophecy or higher than usual Catholic callings.

If I claimed to be a monk, I would indeed be doing such a claim, but I am not claiming to be a monk.

If I claimed I absolutely wanted to become a monk ... which I probably haven't stated since last year in High School ... (I'm 57 now), I would again be close enough to doing such a claim, and I would need someone to verify the calling with. That someone is not Phil Stilwell.

I did a check on that, in early 2000, the monastery answered in the negative. I have since then been abiding by that decision, tried to get a wife and an income from writing, and I have been blocked by liars who mis-label my work as prophecy, unless it's demonic, prophecy, unless it's psychosis, and so on. As I am not claiming prophecy, I'm not obliged to tell the Blessed Virgin that the Parish Priest requested roses in winter to prove She was She. My name is not Bernadette Soubirous. And what I claim to do is not similar to what she claimed to receive.

If someone wants to be heard over seeing the Blessed Virgin, she had obviously better provide objective and miraculous evidence. Often it's girls not boys.

Meanwhile, I claim that theologically speaking Young Earth Creationism is a necessity. Gap theory and Day Age theory are not obviously heretical, but that's on the condition that they leave the creation of Adam as directly from the dust and the timeline from Adam to Jesus at least roughly speaking similar to Luke 3. One is not a heretic for preferring the Vulgate reading of Genesis 11 which has no second Cainan. But it should roughly speaking be similar to Luke 3. Which, since carbon 14 dating, a theory of an old universe and especially an old earth with an old atmosphere will not. So, when it comes to combining Day Age with a Biblical chronology from Adam on, that's theologically licit, it is actually done by the Watchtower Sect, often decent people by the way, but it is scientifically impossible.

If the atmosphere was billions of years old when Noah left the Ark in 2957 or 2347 BC, two dates in conventional Biblical chronologies, that of the Roman Martyrology and that of Ussher, that atmosphere could not leave organic material dating to 39 000 BP. It would most probably have dated to third millennium BC. And very certainly not older than fourth millennium. Human remains exist on either side of the carbon date 39 000 BC. To me, as a Young Earth Creationist, this means they were prior and subsequent to most probably 2957 BC. The Biblical timeline is intact at a point where no person is dying unless it's in the Flood (and if so the dating method will probably be Potassium Argon and give a much older date than carbon) and the persons alive being limited to Noah, his wife, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives (OK some may say Ham's wife was already pregnant). I have no problem with the conventional carbon dates given according to that convention, since I as a Young Earth Creationist belong to a school of thought according to which these can be reinterpreted variously to "much younger" or to my own more precise attempts of calibration, using Biblical events with archaeological traces as anchor points. But the moment you think the atmosphere has been around 100 pmC well before any of this and remained so with minor vaccillations, the moment you say the Neanderthal nicknamed Thorin really died 42 000 years ago, you have loads of skeleta you can't deny humanity to, and you would either have to stretch the timeline after Adam to 40 000 + years or you would have to pretend these skeleta belonged to actual human creatures before Adam. The one is inconsistent with the claims the Catholic Church traditionally makes for the Bible. The other is a heresy which the Church condemned by placing Isaac La Peyrère's book on the index.

I am very far from being a prophet, I'm a theologically concerned layman, and an amateur sleuth into questions that would "question" the Biblical narrative. And I have no duty to show anyone that the Holy Spirit prompted me to this position or to this activity.

Why do I bring this up in the context? Because in another place, and I don't care to cite, Phil Stilwell is half and half suggesting that I might have taken up the existence of a missionary because of what I took as a prompting of the Holy Spirit. Nonsense, if I live a less laidback life than I'd like it is not that I am sacrificing it to be a missionary, it's that people are sacrificing it to challenge me if my supposed decision to be a missionary wasn't stupid. It's pretty stupid to take me for a missionary in the first place.

And what I want to prove that my tables work is not show either an atheist or a priest that I'm led by promptings of the Holy Spirit, what I want to prove that is simply win an argument whether it solves a problem for Young Earth Creationism.

And if on some stretch of the Biblical and archaeological timelines they don't work, what I want to conclude isn't "perhaps it wasn't the Holy Spirit after all" but rather to rework the tables. From 2020 to 2024, I have been using a set of tables which in French are called: Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI) / Tables continuées (VI - IX) and which in English are called New Tables. Since Christmas 2024, I have tables I made even newer than that, so they are called Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy. But when in 2020 I called those tables "New" I implied they were newer than something else which I had previously elaborated and tested against archaeological items and the Biblical timeline. The weak spot of New Tables is the date of the corpses in the Mladec cave. In that now previous calibration, they were too many dead too soon after the Flood. I patched it with appealing to the reservoir effect, which is still an option, I have since remade the calibration in Newer Tables.

And I am sick and tired of people who do not share my polemic interest but also do not want to leave it alone, but make it a thing for them to worry about. Like worry about mental disease if you have Commie or Swedish Social Democrat inclinations to making Science your religion. Like worry about prelest as the Orthodox tend to illicitly do with the children of Fatima. Like worry about pastoral focus, since there are so many other topics I could preach about if I insisted on being a priest or similar. But I don't insist on it, I insist on not being it. I insist I'm not a seer. I insist being Young Earth Creationist is very far from a mental disease. If anything it's the Atheist who's delusional if he thinks his mind is a by product of matter via very complicated biology.

But let's give Phil Stilwell the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was not an umpteenth in between for some shrink trying to assess me without putting himself or his personnel at risk, perhaps he genuinely was just interested in the general question. Well, if so, there are other people than I who also would prefer to be left alone on such items. His original question never was one I intended to answer to the full, and I'm worried other Christians could be trapped into someone sidelining what in some sense promised to be a decent chat about the epistemology for accepting Catholicism at every step into "how are you making your decisions?" ... when it's none of his business nor of the kind of people I feel he reminds me of.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra (vel infra ut in bloggo)