Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Trent Horn Came Out Attacking YEC Argumentation

Just so as not to misrepresent him, he clearly states that Catholics have a right to hold YEC beliefs, and to remain with YEC when converting. But he seems less happy with them articulating these beliefs publically in argument.

An Embarrassing Young Earth Creationist Argument
The Counsel of Trent | 6 May 2024

1:09 If a canon from Trent and a catechism from Wojtyla disagree, does only the latter qualify as "what the Church teaches"?

I make this point based on the mention of a clearly individual Adam in canons 1, 2 and 3 of Trent Session V on Original Sin.

So, based on the coun CIL of Trent, the Church actually teaches that significant implications of Theistic Evolution (like a large human or human like population at whatever time one would pose Adam), are actually condemned through these three anatemas (the remaining ones, 4 and 5 do not speak of how Adam sinned, but how it affects us and can cease to affect us on one level but not on another).

Horn is a liberal

I don't know what you watch and read and how you process the information you get.

A foreword then:

"Wojtyla" is the Polish surname of Pope John Paul II, now Saint John Paul II. The Catechism of 1992 (CCC) was first officially approved on June 25th, and on Dec. 8th promulgated with an Apostolic Constitution.

Wouldn't it be appropriate you'd refer to it as the main source for correctly articulating your terms in your comments?

Whoever reads it cannot read your inner mind, nor know what your conception is of every thing you have written so far.

Does one need to point that out to you, or you can do your own homework and rephrase your comment?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@therealong "Wojtyla" is the Polish surname of a man who, on my view never became Pope.

The CCC is to me one big proof he was not Pope while proclaiming a supposedly Apostolic Constution.

I use the term "Wojtyla" as short for "Antipope Wojtyla" ...

"Wouldn't it be appropriate you'd refer to it as the main source for correctly articulating your terms in your comments?"

When actually I take the Council of Trent as a much more main source for actual Catholic faith?

If you wonder where in CCC I find the opposition to canons 1, 2 and 3 of Session 5 on Original Sin, it's in § 283 and in §§388 to 399.

@therealong But as I know Trent Horn disagrees on above, I questioned what he counts as "still" authoritative.

Does he consider the Council of Trent perfectly authorittative along the CCC, or has it fallen under the CCC to him?

I think that's a fair question given his intro.

I'm sorry then, I cannot help you, since you have no authority to reject either Pope St. John Paul II, or anything else.

Thereby you fall into the category of Schismatic , and are hence not in communion with the Catholic Church at all.

It's so simple.

As I just replied to you other comment, I'll repeat the same here:

"I'm sorry then, I cannot help you, since you have no authority to reject either Pope St. John Paul II, or anything else.

Thereby you fall into the category of Schismatic , and are hence not in communion with the Catholic Church at all.

It's so simple."

Hans Georg Lundahl
@therealong My authority is totally beside the point.

I am a layman.

My point is not whether Trent Horn acknowledges me as authority, but whether he acknowledges the Council of Trent as binding dogma.

If he does, we can have a debate without either of us claiming authority in which he and I try to show logically whether CCC (mentioned paragraphs) are compatible with the canons from Session V.

1:35 His not wanting to dogmatise Young Earth Creationism is somewhat of a bad move.

It's basically the default among Rad Trads that are not Orthopapists (or Dimond brothers, which is something else). It comes with a suspicion against those who do take a hard stance on it, that they are really "Sola Scriptura" proponents, or Protestants in disguise. This involves painting Protestantism as the enemy with too broad a brush, and attributing to "Protestantism" what is in fact Catholicism, and is shared by some Protestants because Protestantism is a series of pirate copies of Catholicism, just like Sean McDowell will not affirm that Jesus rose or that Satanists need to convert just because of Martin Luther's Deformation.

It has not impacted Kennedy Hall as much as it has impacted some other Catholic writers who are YEC. Or at least one, myself.

If I make a case, not from citing "contemporary magisterium" but from logic, that Old Earth as well as Theistic Evolution are incompatible with the broader truths of the faith, not just with some nitpicky passages of the Bible, or the facts of some episode in III Kings, then I fall foul of this "party line" so to speak in which YEC must not be dogmatised. So, while they tolerate believing it, they prefer it remain an inarticulate belief without actual attempts of arguing the necessity of the position.

Meaning, the ones who do affirm such arguments are thrown under the bus.

Macroglossum stellatarum
Appreciate the logic but 90% of trads I know are fine with theistic evolution

Hans Georg Lundahl
@macroglossumstellatarum3068 Even of man? Do you refer to Rad Trads of FSSPX or Sedevacantism, or do you refer to EO form? It's decades since I was involved in Ecclesia Dei.

In the 90's, a certain Rev Bryan Houghton had died. He was not fine with Evolution. He considered it a Buddhist intrusion. He, Dom Gerard Calvet, and Jean Madiran had taken the approach by Ratzinger as opposed to continue siding with Marcel Lefebvre.

Hence my question.

2:11 The four forces might not contradict any definite statement in the Bible as understood over tradition.

That they might be helpful also doesn't mean you definitely should marginalise someone stating sth different than the current majority of the scientific community about the fabric of physical reality.

The four forces may be overdone, as an argument, since the order of celestial bodies in relation to earth, may involve less of the force of gravity and more of the action of angels or of God Himself.

Apart from who is right, which you seem unwilling to discuss, you are also making an argument from utility in evangelism. Well, the science believers are not all of those we are called to reach out to, and some of them are also facing hard questions that science belief doesn't solve. On both of the accounts, Young Earth Creationism should not be suppressed or marginalised.

#2) I replied to your first comment, and I'm now seeing you wrote another one. The subjects are different, but the author is always the same: you.

This here begs two questions:

1) How would you, or even better, how do you define the term "science" in your inner vocabulary?
Likewise, 2) how do you define "believers" either in the Bible and/or in Science?

I've perceived you operate with dichotomies and conflate several worldviews, but still you haven't clarified your own standpoint as also carefully avoided to reveal it.

That raises a third question which was inferred by your phrase:

//Apart from who is right, which you seem unwilling to discuss, you are also making an argument from utility in evangelism.//

3) What really is Evangelism for you and how many forms of it do you think there are?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@therealong Are you trying to do some kind of analysis?

I find that illegitimate, and you would be responding to an appeal from people like Trent Horn, who, while like myself debaters, while challenged by me, avoid debating me.

It would be cowardly of them to ask you to go between.

ScienceS are human activitieS that seek to ascertain true facts about mainly the physical world. Science in the singular is the collection of these activities, some of which may at any given moment be failing, and some of which may be false. An excellent reason to not believe in Science, but in selected sciences. And the kind of things you appeal to when promoting Theistic Evolution are definitely not sciences I would select, nor sciences that I think any Christian should select.

What I mean by believing the Bible, I am a Catholic and a Fundamentalist.

2:47 Now we are getting somewhere.

You pretend the Young Earth Creationist argument is "bad" presumably as in containing factual error or bad logic.

That remains for you to show.

3:14 And one stumbling block about the papacy is, those who submit to Pope Francis are seemingly tongue tied about condemning the errors of Evolution and Millions of years.

Can we agree on two things? A) Apologetics is not just bilateral debates, in which you show Catholicism true to one specific opponent, B) it gains from an overall consistency in the Catholic claim.

Now, you can hardly deny that Genesis 3 is pretty central to Mariology. So, I am improving a consistent reliability of Mariology by improving the epistemic value of Genesis 3.

Minimal overlaps on my view:

1) Adam — Mahalaleel
2) Mahalaleel — Noah
3) Noah — Shem
4) Shem — Eber
5) Eber — Serug
6) Serug — Abraham

That however is sufficient closeness in terms of necessary intermediates for Genesis 3 to be known to Moses (if Abraham wrote it down) with great historic certainty. If you argue, maybe Abraham didn't write it down, we can continue (paraphrasing Haydock) like this:

7) Abraham — Isaac.
8) Isaac — Joseph
9) Joseph — Amram
10) Amram — Moses.

If instead Adam and Eve were supposed to live 40 000 or 100 000 or 750 000 years ago, we have a very different case for the reliability of the Genesis 3 material, as accessible to Moses.

4:38 For a Stegosaurus, I think the plates above the back are far easier to spot from a distance (safe distance?) than spikes along the tail.

For the creature "half monkey, half dog" I'll suggest that Combodians had had some encounters with demons.

The point being the existence of the category "mythical creature" is debatable, and might be a modern myth in itself.

4:44 Especially as no Stegosaurus fossils have been found in Cambodia ...

How many fossils of animals having lived 1000 years ago do you find in Cambodia at all? A Stegosaurus or a dog or a monkey having died in Cambodia 1000 years ago would have quickly disintegrated. The existence of lots of fossils is actually one argument for the unique conditions of the Flood. Conditions that did not persist in Cambodia 1000 years ago.

there are many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago, even people that pretend to do science related to the flood admit that there are more recent fossils and that the record does not stop at whenever they date the flood.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@tafazziReadChannelDescription "many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago"

From the Cambodian rain forest? From Monsoon areas?

5:32 I think there are at least sightings that were taken as indicating the life cycle of the Phoenix or at least the general shape of the bird, as the life cycle can be a question of rumour.

The minotaur could have been a demonic manifestation, or it could have been a man with a bad case of elephantiasis, described in the most available comparison as having the head of a bull, and then ascribed a birth to explain that.

6:03 You forget that the text book representation of Coelophysis, as it is only based on lifeliess bones, may be the one that is less accurate?

6:43 Lions or cats don't have that big necks.

7:39 Great that you brought up the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

It actually contains reference to sightings of dragons.

7:51 First, their habitat would probably have been marshes.

Second, who would dare to hunt them?

8:29 Ouch.

This guy thinks he can do YEC better without me. He misrepresents the poem of Beowulf by reusing the mistake of Kent Hovind.

Grendel and his mother are humanoid creatures, either very large apes, or demonic manifestations (for some reason forced to "play the rules of the game" they had entered when opting for a physical manifestation), or they were some misshapen human creatures, like the poet thought, who were on top of that demon possessed cannibals who couldn't speak.

8:37 He's even confusing Grendel and Grendel's mother.

There actually was a dragon in Beowulf, I take it to have been a pterodactyl, and it was not named. Unlike Grendel, Beowulf did not kill it and survive, and Beowulf couldn't even totally kill it alone.

9:24 7th C.? Hygelac (of the poem) was still alive, and Chlocilaicus (of Frankish historians) would have died "c. 516 or 521" according to wikipedia.

However, if Grendel was not a dino, the dragon at the end of the poem was.

"but 10:27 scientists have now shown that the 10:28 alleged human Footprints at the plexy 10:30 tracks only look human because of 10:33 erosion"

Have they shown it, as in replicating a foot print from some known fossil species, and speeding up erosion to get at least 10 % results replicating the Paluxy footprints?

Or have they hypothesised that this is what happened, and you overdo their epistemic weight?

The Hitomiboy
The latter

Hans Georg Lundahl
@thehitomiboy7379 I'd tend to agree, just would like to know if Trent Horn does so too!

"it often happens 11:59 that even a non-Christian knows a thing 12:01 or two about the Earth the sky the 12:03 various elements of the world about the 12:05 movement and revolution of the stars and 12:07 even their size and distance about the 12:09 nature of animals shrubs rocks and the 12:11 like and maintains this knowledge with 12:13 sure reason and experience it is 12:15 offensive and ruinous something to be 12:17 avoided at all cost for a non-believer 12:20 to hear a Christian talking about these 12:22 things as though with Christian writings 12:24 as his source and yet so nonsensically 12:27 and with such obvious error that the 12:29 non-believer can hardly keep from 12:31 laughing the trouble is not so much that 12:33 the Airing fellow is laughed at but that 12:36 our authors are believed by Outsiders to 12:38 have held those same opinions and so are 12:41 despised and rejected as untutored men 12:43 to the great loss of those for whose 12:45 salvation we toil how are they going to 12:48 believe our books concerning the 12:49 resurrection of the Dead the hope of 12:51 eternal life and the kingdom of heaven 12:53 when they think that they are filled 12:54 with fallacious writing about things 12:56 which they know from experience or sure 12:58 calculation"

Was his wording in Latin really conducive to the translation "calculation"?

If it was "rationibus" it might be better to translate "syllogisms" ...

Now, there is a real problem with applying this quote to the debate.

1) It is disingenious to pretend to cite a clear traditional authority for a modernist position. This disingeniosity could also scare away YEC non-Catholics from the Church Fathers.
2) It is clear that St. Augustine in "maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience" was thinking of other things than millions and billions of years or than Heliocentrism and Deep Space.
3) It is not clear, it is actually one of the points of dispute, whether anyone can rightly and St. Augustine would had he lived now considered these things as a knowledge you can maintain with sure reason and experience.
4) It is at least probable from other items in his writings, which you cite less, since the 70's, that he would not have considered them so.
5) You seem willing to make a kind of overreach, after telling us we can believe YEC then telling us, basically, we must not argue for it.

There is also a more banal problem with your quote.

Bishop Bell's Behemoths are not claimed to be Scripture, and therefore the argument cannot smudge Scripture if it fails.

Caleb Adcock
You’re using time stamps to flow sentences?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@calebadcock363 I'm routinely commenting on video after video stopping it timestamp after timestamp.

So, for instance, when I comment on "but scientists have now shown that the alleged human Footprints at the Paluxy tracks" I include the stimestamps and it is "but 10:27 scientists have now shown that the 10:28 alleged human Footprints at the plexy 10:30 tracks" as to previous comment.

No comments: