- under which I commented, click here.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Cool - you moderated a debate between two non-Catholic heretics. Both of whom squirm at Young Earth Creationism, btw.
I am sometimes bound for un-moderated debates with non-Catholic heretics.
Here I ended up blocking two.
- To claim that denying YEC is a heresy *is* itself a heresy.
And whilst defending YEC is not a heresy proper, it is still greatly problematic, not only because empirical observations overwhelmingly favour evolutionary theory, but also not least because it lays the Faith open to ridicule.
- Fr. Barron is a catholic bishop and not heretical.
If you think he is, than you do not have proper understanding of Catholic doctrine and what heretical means.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "To claim that denying YEC is a heresy *is* itself a heresy."
According to what D E F I N I T I O N?
Trent on Patristic consensus?
"And whilst defending YEC is not a heresy proper, it is still greatly problematic,"
While being the position of all Church Fathers and Scholastics, as well as the obvious sense of the Bible?
"not only because empirical observations overwhelmingly favour evolutionary theory,"
What is the carbon 14 content of sth from uppermost and something from lowermost layer of Göbekli Tepe, Mr. Empiric smart guy? What kind of mutation is needed before we get cultivated wheat?
"but also not least because it lays the Faith open to ridicule."
You know the crucified man with a donkey head inscribed "Deus Christianorum" or even "Deus Iudaeorum"?
If exposing oneself to ridicule is "problematic" what are you doing pretending yourself Christian ... wait, since you are "Anonymous" in actual fact you aren't pretending so.
"Fr. Barron is a catholic bishop and not heretical."
Presuming good standing with Bergoglio means you are Catholic, I suppose, or do you have other arguments for his being orthodox?
I am not recalling all the details, but I found a little piece of mine where I had found some against him.
After looking, I found the context was, Robert Barron had been intimidated by Bill Maher - a man who takes "Father" Coyne and even Zeitgeist seriously.
- You are one confused individual.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- You are one cowardly one - intellectually because you prefer ad hominem over argument, and personally as you hide under anyonymity.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- I noted, by the way, you had no answer on my quizzing.
"What is the carbon 14 content of sth from uppermost and something from lowermost layer of Göbekli Tepe, Mr. Empiric smart guy? What kind of mutation is needed before we get cultivated wheat?"
If you had said, "empirical evidence says roses have green petals" I might want to check you for Daltonism (green-red colour blindness, due to a mutation).
In fact you said "empirical observations overwhelmingly favour evolutionary theory". So, I wanted to check how much you know on Empirical evidence.
It's corresponding to positive for Daltonism.
Now, I can answer this.
Göbekli Tepe starting with 9600 BC or 11,600 BP - means, more or less, 24.58 % of present atmospheric and recent samples carbon 14 content. Ending 8600 BC or 10,600 BP. This is taken from a measure of 27.741 % of modern carbon 14 (or 27.741 pmc).
If the samples started out with 100 pmc, it takes 10,600 years before they reach 27.741 pmc, because in 10,600 years they reduce to 27.741 % of original content.
It takes similarily 11,600 years before they reach 24.58 % of original carbon 14 content.
Now, if the original content was 42.42 pmc (I'm taking the older date), how many years would it take before it reaches 24.58 pmc?
42.42 * x = 24.58
x = 24.58 / 42.42
x = 0,5794436586515794
x = 57.944 %
If this had been for a sample starting out with 100 pmc, we would have had 57.944 pmc, which is the test value for 4500 years.
You can do similar exercises with a starting point at 47 - 48 pmc for the younger date:
47.5 * y = 27.741
y = 27.741 / 47.5
y = 0,5840210526315789
y = 58.402 %
Insert this as pmc value, since the calculator takes* 100 pmc as original value, you get 4450 years.
And here is where I go to for Empiric Evidence about carbon 14 related to dates:
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
Now, what mutation is needed before you et cultivated wheat? One which is to wheat, like Daltonism to man, but worse.
In wild wheat, each grain is dropping from the sheaf as it matures. A good bargain for the plant, in self sowing, but a nightmare for a farmer.
In a certain mutation, wheat looses this capacity. Mature grains stay on the sheaf - a good bargain for the farmer, but an extinction nightmare for the plant. Dropping a whole sheaf is not a good sowing economy. Especially as it won't drop before it rots, which means the grain is already spoiled and won't grow.
This mutation can be traced back to Göbekli Tepe, as I found out the other day. This video shows a BBC clip on that matter.
So, between Cain and Abel, who would have been sacrificing wheat?
Abel, since the sheep or goat or ancestral-to-both could have been grazing whild wheat, not having concerns about how harvestable it is to a farmer.
Cain must have sacrificed non-wheat plant material, so "fruit of the earth" must refer to sth else than wheat. My hunch is, potatoes.
Other non-answer from Anonymous:
"According to what D E F I N I T I O N? Trent on Patristic consensus?"
I mean, when we deal with heresy, we deal with a crime in the Church Law. Nulla Poena Sine Lege. So, normally, there is no heresy without a definition excluding it from orthodoxy.
- Greg S
- Well, Hans, you’ve got so many things wrong right there that Anon doesn’t even know where to start... and neither do I.
- This guy sounds almost like one of those delusional sedevacantists who think they have the whole Church Tradition on their side against all existing bishops and theologians for decades and decades, and it's up to them as inquisitors to keep the faith alive (among few individuals).
Hopefully he's not; just saying that the way he acts kinda makes it seem like it.
As for YEC, any honest and serious interpretation of Humani Generis recognizes that Old Earth, and even standard evolutionary theory is open to Catholics -- with one caveat, which is the issue of our supernatural soul created immediately by God, and monogenism. Besides that, HG pretty much explicitly allows for the possibility of a natural explanation of our bodies as was being developed at the time (contra YEC), while simultaneously advising caution and saying that the natural explanation at the time had not been proven. In other words, it does not condemn it, rather it leaves it as an open possibility. It is absurd to suggest denial of YEC is a heresy.
And that's even just taking HG into consideration, without mentioning what subsequent popes have said on the subject. But seeing that our friendly commenter has an ax to grind and no qualms or fear of scandal or imprudence in calling a bishop of the Church a heretic, we can't expect much.
It's kinda funny that in this day and age he believes the earth is like 6000 years old, though.
So, just to clarify: Catholics are free to believe either in YEC or Old Earth creationism and evolution (provided they accept the special creation of the soul and monogenism, Ed himself has written on these topics in the past anyway). There is no heresy in either view.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Well, Hans, you’ve got so many things wrong right there that Anon doesn’t even know where to start... and neither do I."
Well, that is a non-starter.
"This guy sounds almost like one of those delusional sedevacantists who think they have the whole Church Tradition on their side ..."
Delusional sounds a bit like how Pharisees did their social interactions.
I do think I have the Church Tradition on my side, and would be willing to argue it in detail if you have any real objections.
"against all existing bishops and theologians for decades and decades, and it's up to them as inquisitors to keep the faith alive (among few individuals)."
You are aware your hierarchy is not considering the Sede bishop lines as all invalid, I hope?
Therefore, your point of "all existing bishops" is very moot.
Perhaps even in the Novus Ordo establishment, you are judging too exclusively from US Episcopal conference, and ignoring men like Laun (an Austrian placed in Kazakhstan). I don't know what he would say, but I would like to hear.
"As for YEC, any honest and serious interpretation of Humani Generis recognizes that Old Earth, and even standard evolutionary theory is open to Catholics"
Except the document (in the relevant paragraphs) doesn't say one word about what we are free to believe positively. It says negatively we are NOT free to believe Adam's soul evolved, which I don't think is a definition, since I think it is repeating a definition (Syllabus or Vatican Council of 1869-70).
Except that the document is NOT a definition. Therefore cannot give us any rights we didn't have. It pretends to do so on a basis of "social experiment".
What it says on this point is basically "let the geeks fight it out, with one proviso, and let everyone submit to the decision of the Church".
Note very well, he is not saying "future decision of the Church". He just says "decision of the Church". He is very aware the debate could finally prove what I contend that the relevant decision is by Trent and as per consensus of Church Fathers foreclosing all licitness of Evolutionary or Old Earth belief.
The document is as such is not a decision, even if you treat it like that, it is a deliberate non-decision. A "who am I to judge".
"Besides that, HG pretty much explicitly allows for the possibility of a natural explanation of our bodies as was being developed at the time (contra YEC)"
Allows for it being defended in debate. No explicit allowal for it being believed.
"while simultaneously advising caution and saying that the natural explanation at the time had not been proven."
It had not and has not been proven as even a natural one.
Its "advice of caution" as you put it is quasi a draconic rule of "don't touch it if you ain't no geek".
As in fact I am a geek, expers sacrae scripturae et naturalium scientiarum, though not an expert in the vernacular sense, my debate is therefore explicitly allowed by the document.
And as both geekitudes were required for the debate, and it is a debate for or against evolution, this very much allows for a debater also saying denial of YEC is heretical. That is clearly within the freedoms actually outlined by that document. By that non-judgement.
And you treat it as a judgement forbidding a debater on the Biblical side of the issue and Creationist side of the divide to appeal to Trent and Church Fathers and to Mark 10:6 (a reference which even a heretic like Kent Hovind could spot, which at least technically, and on many points outside the Creationist issue he is).
"It is absurd to suggest denial of YEC is a heresy."
"HG" - it is a nick name for me too - says you are free to try to prove that from either Bible or Sciences. It does not say you are free to presume it from the document.
Its reception is a prototype for Montini's dispensation allowing hand communion and then episcopate after episcopate starts treating it as forbidding Communion given in the Mouth.
Except, the turns around "HG" are even more absurd, since it does not explicitly say one is allowed to believe Evolution and Old Age.
"And that's even just taking HG into consideration, without mentioning what subsequent popes have said on the subject."
As said, "HG" has not defined your point for you. Clear Antipopes from Roncalli to Bergoglio have also not done it, and their opinion is more likely to prove them Apostates than your being Orthodox. But their statements have been statements of opinion, not formal judgements.
They have well known that a formal judgement in your sense (as opposed to appealing to Pacelli or possibly Pius XII) would be about as arousing as Amoris Laetitia proved to be.
"But seeing that our friendly commenter has an ax to grind and no qualms or fear of scandal or imprudence in calling a bishop of the Church a heretic, we can't expect much."
I do have an axe to grind, whether I am friendly or you are generous in irony.
I do however not consider me as calling a bishop of the Church any such thing, since I do not consider Robert Barron as a bishop of the Church.
The standing of Nestorius on saying for the first time on Constantinople "let's not call Her Theotokos, just Christotokos" was better than Robert Barron. He was in succession of Patriarchs sharing same liturgy, in Communion with a Pope of Rome not put in any kind of doubt by any Catholic then. Nevertheless, a layman shouted heretic, and a Council agreed with the layman.
"It's kinda funny that in this day and age he believes the earth is like 6000 years old, though."
I am reminded of how C. S. Lewis was one day told "you aren't in broad daylight in the 20th C. going to introduce the Devil with horns and horse hooves are you?"
As C. S. Lewis could deny believing the horns and horse hoovs, I deny believing 6000 years old as well as denying to believe it 5778 years old. I am neither a Protestant nor a Jew.
If we speak of like 7200 or 7500 years old (Roman / Byzantine martyrologies as used by the Church - the "unknown ages stuff" from 1994 is NOT a valid Roman liturgy), now we are talking.
And, as he could remark that the Devil existing is precisely equally likely in the 20th C and in broad daylight, so, I also, am denouncing an attempt of appeal to "chronological snobbery".
Pius XII, if you prefer to call him that, was not involving naive belief in superiority of 20th C over every preceding one, at least in science and philoosphy of science as an explicited prerequisite for the debate he suggested that geeks should fight out.
"Catholics are free to believe either in YEC or Old Earth creationism and evolution"
IF "HG" is even a document of the Church Catholic geeks are free to debate either.
"There is no heresy in either view."
That "HG" was not remotely pretending to judge on.
"provided they accept the special creation of the soul and monogenism"
Well, already a problem of Old Earth.
We must also accept that the monogenism comes from Adam.
So, was Göbekli Tepe built by pre-Adamites on your view? Were soulless higher primates doing that?
If so, your are seriously embarrassing monogenism.
Or was Adam prior to 9600 BC? If so, you must either contradict the dating methods (which are your reason for Old Age) or go one further against the Bible and say the genealogies are full of large holes.
Or was Adam prior to 9600 BC? = prior to Göbekli Tepe which is dated to 9600 BC (at its start)?
- We're used to have an atheist troll come by once in a while. But this time we're dealing here with a sedevacantist troll! Well, that's a new one!
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- OK, me being a sede troll (technically incorrect, since I don't have either hairyness or strength of Grendel - and since supporting Pope Michael is something other than Sede proper) is all you can say in defense of WLC and Robber Baron of Theology both squirming at YEC and the latter even caving in to Bill Maher on that account?
Short on arguments?
[I think h in Short in previous try was deleted rather than forgotten.]
- Oh, so you’re a schismatic then...
But you know that’s still anathema, don’t you?
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Who's anathema depends on who's schismatic.
If you are heretics, you are also directly schismatics.
I'd say, if you accept Bergoglio's view on what is required for valid marriage, you are a heretic.
So do some you would not otherwise call even schismatics, like Bishop Laun.
* More properly speaking, the calculator is programmed by one taking 100 pmc as original value. The software itself is not taking anything as anything, it lacks awareness of everything, including of what it is processing.