Debate under Gutsick Gibbon's Video

Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her · Debate under Gutsick Gibbon's Video

Same video, debate thread started by someone else.

K Hewett

Creationists can only win arguments when they are writing the script for the scientist.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I could as easily say, science teachers can only win arguments when they can shut off a debate with a creationist when it suits them.

Gwit

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and you'd be wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gwit Because I can still recall the occasion?

Gwit

@Hans-Georg Lundahl because your claim is not valid. any experience you may have does not represent every interaction. the original comment does this as well, but it is at least more accurate since theists almost never win arguments unless their opponent is unprepared, incompetent, or innacurately represented. they also tend to fabricate strawmen a lot more often.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gwit It seems my replay got deleted.

You want a debate per the electronic and private version of the postal office, you can prepare as much as you like.

My three initials, and after a quirky sign in the middle, the extension some Med Drs have in the US, but I am not a Med Dr, nor trying to impersonate one, here in Europe that kind of email doesn't mean anything special.

Gwit

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yea i'll have to decline. as i said, theists only win arguments with unworthy opponents, and i am not a professional, nor will i pretend to be. if you wanna have an in-depth debate with someone, there are plenty of more qualified options than some guy in a youtube comments section. just send me the recording after you win.

daft wulli

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Quote :"I could as easily say, science teachers can only win arguments when they can shut off a debate with a creationist when it suits them."

you could not be more wrong, many creationistjsd boast how good they are at debates and how they win any debate. Butj as soon as you challenge them to an actually fair debate they run for the hills. It is exceptionally rare that they agree to a debate, and then they fall flat on their face and make shit up as they go along since they have no real argument and are notoriously dishonest. There is countless examples for that here on youtube.

I have been debating creationists for 2 decades, and countles times I proposed a simple challenge : show me a video of a creationists which is minimum 10 minutes long, and I bet I can show at least 5 lies in it. Usually I find at least double digits, i even had tripple digits before /tbf that was an hour long). I have yet to lose a single challenge in 20 years of doing this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli "Butj as soon as you challenge them to an actually fair debate they run for the hills."

I didn't.

I challenged Kevin R. Henke to a debate, and kept it up until it became clear he clearly preferred misunderstanding my points, repeating points already answered, and exacting from me a separate answer on every single point he made, no matter how repetitive, no matter how many times I had already actually answered it, no matter how many answers of mine he had dismissed with "oh, that's a separate topic, we'll take the debate next year"

You can see my side of it if you go to the blog with "creavsevolu" in the unique redirection link and then search Kevin R. Henke.

If Gwit admits not being the kind of expert I should take a debate with, why does he (or she) even bother to answer?

Obviously not eager to get someone more honest than Henke, but as knowledgeable as he into a debate I could win by arguing well. More like some of those knowledgeable people have decided:

• to not confront me
• to get people like Gwit or you to do so
• to prepare them for the fight with pseudo-arguments on why I am not trying to get my arguments published as peer reviewed papers.

Tice Nits

@Hans-Georg Lundahl creationists aren’t debating science though, that’s the problem. It’s like arguing with me about the appearance of an apple while you are clearly holding an orange in your hand. The two are simply not the same and there’s no discussion to be had

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tice Nits Creationists are (and I'm one of them) debating about facts, usually considered as scientific facts.

For instance, if a carbon date from Göbekli Tepe is based on the sample having now 25 pmC left, which is a scientific fact for some of the samples, I argue about this, that instead of carbon 14 proportion being at originally c. 100 pmC and this depending on two halflives, the original carbon 14 proportion was in the 40's (below 50 pmC), and the time since then is less than one halflife.

You cannot say I am not arguing, you cannot say it's not about a carbon date based on 25 pmC in a sample, and you cannot say that 25 pmC in the sample is not a scientific fact.

theeddorian

The Creationist "theory of evolution" is always a straw man target, since it bears no obvious relationship to any science. The common debate tactic is to pose the straw man, and then demand an "evolutionist" defend it. Another, and very important point, is that Darwin rarely even used the word "evolution." Text versions of Origin can be downloaded and words counted using text analysis. I believe in the copy I have, variations of the word "evolution" appears around seven times. Darwin, IIRC, does describe his theory of natural selection as belonging to a class of common theories at the time, which I believe he describes as "evolutionary." It is worth recollecting that Lamarck also offered an "evolutionary" theory of biological change, which is unlike Darwin's. "Evolution" in Darwin's work is always used in a context where the usage is consistent with common Victorian use of the word, which has nothing to do with science, or theory. Essentially, it means "emerge." Darwin argues that natural selection, which is not a theory, but rather a subclass, can act on populations in much the same manner that human selection does. He applies "natural" as an adjective to differentiate one source from selection from that applied by humans to domestic plants and animals. No rational Victorian of the time would have argued against the effects of human selection on domesticated species.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@theeddorian Excuse me, you sound as if you were arguing about changes like Galapagos islands. We Creationists don't deny them, we just say finches are still finches.

The first finch on Galapagos had a beak, beaks didn't evolve as a new feature.

Andrew Watts

@Hans-Georg Lundahl A new feature? Wtf? See if you can stay on topic for the duration it takes to respond. “Finches are still finches”? That’s really profound and so entirely irrelevant. Raise your game. Oh hang on, that’s right, you’re a creationist. Presumably you’re eligible for some sort of government support for that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Andrew Watts I'm not applying for one.

Your words sound like if you thought you were in the Soviet Union, with its political psychiatry.

My point is entirely sound. Finches on Galapagos are still finches. Speciation is not even complete, since a new Galapagos finch species recently discovered was a hybrid from two or more of those Darwin discovered. You simply do not find similar support for dogs and cats to have same ancestry.

Matthew Langley

Yup, as someone who was raised a creationist and lived in that bubble until my mid 20s I agree 100%. Any real conversation with a scientist (or even my high school chemistry teacher in my case) the arguments fall apart.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Matthew Langley OK, what happened?

D O

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I didn't say it did. I said that people believed that INSTEAD of science because there was no science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@D O That's not what I consider as fact. The word "science" cannot mean "correct science only".

So, I am arguing that four humours are in fact a scientific position, if not entirely correct, also not useless for practical purposes.

The idea that at a given point in time, on a given topic:

• there was no science
• the back then position was believed instead of science

is absurd. That's not how things work.

Anything people believe on a topic is a kind of science, and especially, if it is in any way, even quirky, derived by logic from observations of recurring phenomena, it is natural science. In this sense the four humours is natural science, and if not a completely good one, at least a useful shortcut.

D O

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So they used the scientific method with control groups and manipulated variables? 🤣

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@D O Science does not depend on that version of the scientific method.

Over thousand five hundred years or so of use, I think the theory was sufficiently tested and refined to be useful, if not totally accurate.

They would not have used control groups with fake pills, for one thing because some of the substances used in herbal medicine have a good taste, and it is physically hard or impossible to get that taste without the active molecule.

But there would have been sufficient occasions of things not getting there in time or other mixups to provide de facto control groups.

@D O Btw, you can't do control groups for abiogenesis or for apes developing into men or non-speech into speech.

mhm

@hglundahl just get out, get help

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mhm5712 who'll help me against a crowd of you?

No. I am not getting out of creationism, which is good history and which is not disproven as science.

If YOU want to get out of Evolutionism (but sects that big often don't feel like sects, even if they are), my blogs have some to offer.

Are Dimond Brothers Pro-Putin?

Does “Return To Tradition” (Anthony Stine) Buy Fake Views?
vaticancatholic.com, 30 March 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5V3hY7c5yA

1:13 Two comments.
a) Wanting to live off content providing is perfectly licit, it is uncharitable on either side against other or against me to hold it - or against someone else eithgr. Wanting to be known is not good, but a baker wants his bread to be known in the neighbourhood he's selling in, and a content provider has a less dense population of clients, and therefore a need for a wider audience. You may be independent of gifts, but this may not be known to all;
b) I think clergy (even if invalid, they have that social position, right?) of the Vatican II Sect can often use aggressively uncharitable statements against someone disagreeing with them, and get it promoted through laity who go to their (invalid?) Mass or get their (invalid?) absolutions. For instance, there has been an urban legend that Pope Michael was mentally ill. Even if you consider him a fraud (and me too) for not being Feeneyites, you can admit he was (apart from the final month after a stroke) functional and able to organise people around him, so that allegation must be false. I specifically asked someone who made a documentary if it seemed to her he had such social inhibitions as ongoing treatment would imply, and she had no idea of any such thing.

1:23 Yeah, like, he is probably repeating some kind of hate speech from his clergy.

I recall a little history in Sweden, the friend of mine who woke me up to Trad themes (I had congratulated him to his conversion Novus Ordo) told me such a French Dominican had told him of Trad literature "worse than pornography" - technically true if it is heretical, but I don't think that he was totally into providing specifics on what canon of what session condemned the positions in specie, independently of who was Pope.

2:39 If clickfarms have been used to boost me or comment, I cannot deny, I can just say, I had no means myself to pay them, in case you think of exposing me ...

[added successfully:]

When I say "I cannot deny" I can also add, I cannot confirm, meaning even to myself.

Some few cases I have seen clicks coming from sites I haven't visited, and which are much visited (a high ranking component of internet content, not very good for women in this life or souls in this and next life).

3:09 I can say, someone has been trying to lower my Alexa rank. Late december, my blogs (overall 40+, but some very little visited) sank from 3000 / day to a trickle.

4:40 I don't have twitter.

[The following were deleted]

10:23 Viganò is heavily pro-Putin and has not condemned Putin for the Sputnik V vaccine and for allowing no med pratitioner in hospitals (I think there are very few private ones) to be without it, while labasting Pfizer / Moderna for, among other things, aborted fetal cells.

I am ashamed of Pfizer doing that, since a kind of extended family was doing his carreere on Pfizer. But I grudge a man holding this against Pfizer, when viruses cultivated on fetal cells were used:

• for initial research of each strain specific vaccine (so it is still ongoing)
• for testing efficacy of vaccine (badly enough, since vaccines should rather be tested against viruses out there)
• but NOT the prouction of every dose

and then NOT holding this against Putin when Sputnik V as a Classic vaccine has pathogens (dead or disactivated) in every dose, and these pathogens are in the case at hand viruses, cultivated on fetal cells.

If you want a source for my claim about Putin's vaccine, check:
NYT, International edition, Tuesday Aug. 4 2020, I forget which page.

While I'm awaiting the next Pope from Vatican in Exile, I hope it's not Viganò, for this reason, and also hope it's not me, I intend to get married, and teeth lost while I was exposed right and left as a fraud (but not to my face so I could defend myself) and lived on in the street and needed more coffee in high quantities with sugar, I would rather bet on some girl forgiving me that, than risk committing a sacrilege with the chalice.

11:22 Assorted retorts
Viganò 9 hits
Vigano 7 hits
New blog on the kid
Viganò 9 hits, including a draft about his Bethlehem declaration and one index post
Vigano 8 hits, including one coincidence with previous even at first look and two index posts, one of which may also coincide

I think he should be absent from all other blogs of mine. Checked on Φιλολoγικά/Philologica with both spellings, latest actual article deals with there being no case for Abraham being an idolater.
Acts 7:4, if Abraham was born when Terah was 70, is it the spiritual fatherhood of Sarug, who died to the flesh when Abraham was 50, or the spiritual death of Terah, who may have only in Harran (also across the river Euphrates!) committed idolatry for a remarriage (we know he was married at least twice, Abraham and Sarah having different mothers, Gen 20:12).

Second highest, same blog, I argue against the position of Romanides (defended by a fan of his in comments to an earlier article of mine) that Rome from the time of Aeneas and Romulus spoke Greek.

Third highest, same blog, demonstration from l'Ancien Régime that the 14 / 12 rule was not just Quixotic theory, but teen marriages were in fact promoted in cases they were affordable, as was the case with royalty - probably as well as classes lower than bourgeoisie who needed less investments to start a household.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica has 974 published articles.
New blog on the kid 3039 (my latest main blog, which means it includes more hard to classify and boring stuff than any other blog, bit not that it is only that)
Assorted retorts 1739 published.

On these three less than 33 Vigano, either Italian or English spelling.

[tried to add:]

For comparison, the search Dimond brothers on Assorted retorts gives 24 hits. Including 5 with the label of your channel. Two others include the label and not the "Dimond brothers" ...

I learned about Ravi's death from you.

[This is how I discovered that both of my primary comments after the 4:40 timestamp one had been deleted, perhaps Dimond Brothers don't like Putin criticism?]

Other question: can they be contacted?

I tried finding the email to them on a post on Correspondence blog, but it was from 2013, when I had another email on voila.fr (no longer extant) and the actual post does not include their full email.

I tried their site, but whenever I scroll down to the bottom of their pre-views, there are more pre-views of videos that pop out below the limit I had reached and they hide the bottom of the site.

Ah, found it in my correspondence, two mails they didn't answer.

[resuming the watch]

12:09 Apologetics is certainly a fair trade to make a secular living off.

It is not reserved for clergy and monastics, as it seems St. Justin Martyr and also St. Thomas More were neither.

Chesterton was an Apologist (among other topics of writing, including Distributism - it's called propriétarisme in French - and Ruralism and Medievalism). Now, what exactly was his state in life?

Married layman, precisely as Anthony Stine.

What was his profession? Someone writing to get paid for that - since the time he gave up painting.

What Church did he die in? In 1936, the Catholic Dioceses of England had not yet started to promote the wicked idea that Adam could have biological ancestry, so, he died in the Catholic Church.

What was the Church's attitude to this? He was made a Knight Commander with Star of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, by Pius XI, who, for all his concessions in politics, was at least orthodox and clearly a Pope.

13:49 I also am not monetised for my blog posts.
a) because I have another plan, blog to book
b) because blogger does not have that feature in the first place.

It is interesting that google owning both youtube and blogger makes it so easy to monetise youtubes - and not just is blogger not monetised by ads, but when I go to platforms for self publishing, giving links in the form of blog links is impossible.

Nevertheless, getting one's posts into a printer's office for commercial sales is not the least illegal. But it seems highly unwanted, and those knowing my situation have known for at least ten years that this is my plan for getting "a life" ... a coincidence?

20:02 As to your concluding words, I wonder how many have said such things, for instance as priests to parishioners or as well established successful and important parish members to younger and more marginal ones, but without posting anything I could rebut.

At least you have given Anthony Stine sth to respond to, if he likes, as he did with you.

Criticism of Jordan Peterson and His Opponent, Sharing Dialogue with Quentin

Atheist BBC Journalist Challenges Jordan Peterson, gets SCHOOLED Instantly!
Modern Wisdom, 5 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMy0RfLssg

0:50 Sorry, but comparing the narrative parts of the Bible to movies and literature as sole criterium of them being true, rather than to history is to miss it.

Quentin

Why that ? Nowadays most people choose to believe. If it was just a stupid tradition I don't think religions would have survived, people believe mostly because they find truth in it.
But maybe I miss your point.
Sorry for my english I'm french

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin Perhaps you should have taken that into account for your reading comprehension.

"as sole criterium for them being true"

[La comparaison à des films et des romans qui ont de la vérité morale] comme seul critère comme quoi elles sont vraies [elles = les parties narratives de la Bible].

Is this more comprehensible now?

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl yes, it seem to me like a detail but I understand

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin "a detail" more if you like

Suppose the Bible is historically true, and Adam was created full grown with no ancestry and with language competence given fully developed into a native language, miraculously given by God.

Or suppose, on the other hand, that men evolved from apes with no human language.

Which of them reflects better on the goodness of God?

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't really believe in good or bad, there's no such thing in the nature. I prefer to say that there are actions who benefit us and other who destroy us.
The history of religions don't matter to me because I don't entirely believe in them, only in their message, which I believe is essential to live in society. And I think that every people who blindly believe in everything written in sacred books are fanatics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin Well, if you don't really believe in good or bad, that means you are not Christian.
If you only believe the message of religions, but not the history, then you don't believe the message of religions.

You have the same problem as Jordan Peterson.

"And I think that every people who blindly believe in everything written in sacred books are fanatics."

And this kind of demonising your opposite is a very good way of covering up your own shortcoming.

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl well it seem you know better than me what I believe in lol. If you want I'm not a perfect Christian, I wonder if such thing exist. And you don't need to know the history of a religion to believe in it, you have to experience it. I start to believe in god when I was 13, because of what I feel when I was praying with group of protestant and I start to understand the real meaning of the religions. And I'm not demonizing people it's just a fact, I said "believe blindly", you can believe in the bible or interpret it in a way that match your belief but not the opposite (believe in it just because it has been written in a sacred book)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin "it seem you know better than me what I believe in lol."

SeemS. Verbs have S in the singular of the present tense, nouns don't have tenses and have it in the plural.

No, I don't. I just know what it means to believe the message of a religion. The different religions usually don't contradict in the history (creation stories and eschatology being possible exceptions), but do contradict very much in their messages.

"because of what I feel when I was praying with group of protestant"

Of Protestants. S at the end, since nouns have it in the plural. Capital P, since religions like nationalities are proper names in English.

"And I'm not demonizing people it's just a fact, I said "believe blindly", you can believe in the bible or interpret it in a way that match your belief but not the opposite (believe in it just because it has been written in a sacred book)"

If you are a Catholic Christian, you have to believe things because they are in the Bible, at least if you know that fact.

If I said "Abraham had his second son aged 100 years" you are free to say you don't believe it, but if I show it it is in Genesis, you are no longer free to not believe it.

The statement about "blind belief" is a classic example of being derogatory instead of dealing with the arguments.

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl thank you for the corrections.
I'm not an expert in all religions, but the message of peace of mind and love/respect to each other seem to be share in most of them.
I hope if it was indicate in some passage of the bible to not eat vegetable you wouldn't have do it lol, or worse if it was indicate that everyone who don't believe in the bible have to die.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin The Bible doesn't contain that kind of stuff, so, there is no risk of that kind involved.

"the message of peace of mind and love/respect to each other seem to be share in most of them."

ShareD. Just because "partager" and "partagé" are homophones in French, doesn't make share and shared homophones in English.

That's not much of a message, since religions differ vastly on when one can or even should be upset and whom one can in any way, and what way, not respect.

It's like saying Euclid and Cantor have the same maths, because both agree 2 + 2 = 4.

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl we won't convince each other so keep your belief in sacred books I keep mine in feelings.
Have a good day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin I'm having it, thank you the same to you.

Would you mind our dialogue getting to a blog of mine?

Quentin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl not at all

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Quentin Merci beaucoup!

1:17 His 12 rules for life, perhaps 5 of them are genuinely Christian.

2:48 Secular ethics have been mainly wedded to Totalitarianism since the 18th C.

Voltaire leads to Beccaria leads to Robespierre.

BOTH as wanting to replace death penalty with life time forced labour and ignomy AND as voting death penalty for a man whom reactionaries could rally to AND as voting death penalties for more and more men who would support him, and for less and less support actually still getting them killed.

If you ask me, this is my theory of Göbekli Tepe being Babel, and with Josephus' views on Nimrod's motivation, Nimrod had a hairbrained and unnecessary scheme for saving humanity from the next Flood, and he persecuted shirkers and collected their heads after letting their bodies lie out in the open for vultures to feast on. Collected them and put them on display. The ultimate secular ethics are basically a mixture of Conan the Conqueror and Thulsa Doom - verging more and more to the latter.

2:52 Kant lead to Totalitarianism in Prussia and hence also the Soviet Union.
Bentham lead to Capitalism, which has its own somewhat different Totalitarianism.

Holodomor in Ukraine is basically the Soviet genocide. Hence Kant's genocide.
Irish so called potato famine, is basically pushing contract clauses over survival of farm labour, who grew wheat enough to survive if they had been given what they had grown, and is the Capitalist genocide, so Bentham's genocide.

3:49 Jordan Peterson is best known for practising the superstition called psychology, and he pretends to be an "evolutionary biologist" ... perhaps there is a real marriage between the one and the other of these superstitions.

4:03 Change can have two roots.

• Applying Christianity in a new way.
• Getting rid of Christianity as applied in an already old way.

Those two are not equivalent, but opposite, and "change" is not an absolute, as it's normal everyday concept implies. Switching the light on or off is not changing the definitions of light or darkness.

7:09 "or you have something to say to people that you haven't been saying"

What about 3 or you have been saying sth to people that they have on purpose avoided hearing?

[separate comment]

Scandinavia ... there is a problem when women are being told, they are better off as health workers or in helping to educate other people's children, than looking after their own kin, giving birth and educating their own children.

A woman who "realises herself" or "realises her potential" by putting off children and treating others' children as hers or other grown people as children, that's feminism's parody of the alpha male.

Kennedy Hall on Bishops During Lockdowns (Just Sharing)

Will the Catholic Bishops FINALLY admit what they did during COVID?
The Kennedy Report, Pentecost Monday 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyaUqQ04izo

Under the same video by Casey Cole

Real Priest Answers Questions about Confession
Breaking In The Habit, 17th March 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRLZ_94eQss

My comments directly to the video on the previous post Fr. Casey has his sides, but these two videos are good.

Kristina L.

While I am not Catholic, my in-laws are. I appreciate this channel so much as it's helping me understand where they are coming from regarding their religious faith. Thank you for the clear explanations, and God bless you in your ministry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't think he is Catholic on all subjects, but on this one he is.

Dark Angel

@Hans-Georg Lundahl he is a catholic priest and he is catholic on everything

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Dark Angel No, even Trent Horn could correct him on historicity of the Gospels, where he had pretended (Fr Casey, not Horn) that the memories of the disciples could have been distorted after decades.

I think I have heard him defend the Theory of Evolution as well.

Calvin Coolidge Simp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic teachings

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Calvin Coolidge Simp Is your criterium on Catholic Teachings from Trent Session IV or from CCC § 283?

If the former, you cannot back your claim about "not incompatible" and if the latter in preference over the former, I will not buy your claim to be Catholic. You are obviously free to reciprocate the sentiment.

Jimmy Akin Isn't Catholic on Adam and Eve, Nor Honestly Telling what Pius XII Said

What Does Catholicism Teach on Adam and Eve?
Reason & Theology, 27 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FUhpEHcnbo

0:24 So, Pius XII made a document with §36 so lame it will go to history as worse than when Honorius forbade polemics against Monotheletism. At least in its reception. As to the wording, it could arguably have invited to actual debate with Creationists, full fledged Creationists like Ottaviani, actually getting to argue why the Bible and even science bans the idea of Adam having non-human ancestry. Now, non-human ancestry is not Jimmy Akin's position, but in 1950 his position would have been instantly stamped as what it is, polygenism, and been banned on account of §37.

And I hear two people complaining that §37 is basically too strict for our times ...

3:10 I think, while he is saying that Adam's soul was directly created by God, he is also saying that souls did not evolve along bodies, so, at some point, if evolution is true, someone has a soul created in God's image, while those giving rise to his body hadn't. Obviously, that someone would be Adam. In 1941 he had already cautioned, if Adam had progenitors, they were not in the full and real sense his parents, since despite anatomical likeness, they weren't human. That was in an allocution to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

This part obviously conflicts with Jimmy Akin's position.

However, the evolutionary solution to the question, "Adam had progenitors," is against the goodness of God, since it would have made Adam a feral child before he had sinned.

3:53 Yeah, 1992 ... wait, you are speaking of another occasion in 1996? ... in 1996, Wojtyla was not just Antipope in the sense of being a sham Pope who was not teaching Catholicism, but he was also an Antipope in the sense that Pope Michael had already been elected. 1990.

4:22 "He does not mention Pius XII's restriction on polygenism"

Since unlike the requirement to submit to the judgement of the Church, Wojtyla was not submitting to Trent Session V.

5:10 "a caution against polygenism"

Cum vero de alia coniecturali opinione agitur, videlicet de polygenismo, quem vocant, tum Ecclesiae filii eiusmodi libertate minime fruuntur.

This is not a caution, it's a ban.

The sons of the Church in no wise enjoy this kind of freedom, that's a ban, not a caution.

5:19 He does not in so many words say "it is false" since the encyclical is not a syllabus, but takes the form of paternal discussion of what can and can't be done.

But he does say what boils down to "it cannot be true."

5:43 He doesn't say "we don't have the liberty to freely discuss it" he says we don't have the liberty to even entertain it. Here is a close analysis of the Latin.

Non enim christifideles eam sententiam amplecti possunt,

For Christians cannot embrace the sentence

quam qui retinent asseverant

which, the ones who hold it ascertain

vel post Adam hisce in terris veros homines exstitisse, qui non ab eodem prouti omnium protoparente, naturali generatione originem duxerint,

that either after Adam in these lands true man have existed, who did not take their origin by natural generation from the same as from the first parent of all.

vel Adam significare multitudinem quamdam protoparentum;

or that Adam signifies a kind of multitude of first parents.

cum nequaquam appareat quomodo huiusmodi sententia componi queat

as it is nowise apparent how such a sentence could be consistent

cum iis quae fontes revelatae veritatis et acta Magisterii Ecclesiae proponunt

with the things the sources of revealed truth and acts of the Magisterium of the Church propose

de peccato originali quod procedit ex peccato vere commisso ab uno Adamo,

about the Original sin, which proceeds from the sin truly committed by one single Adam

quodque generatione in omnes transfusum, inest unicuique proprium

and which spilled over into all by generation, is inherent in each as his own.

And please note, the reference to Trent Session V means, not a lack of liberty to openly discuss, but loss of faith and Church membership on even interiorly thinking such things as polygenism.

5:55 No, he did not say "it is not obvious how" but "it is in nowise appearing how" ...

It's a bit like saying "it is in no way appearing how matter could give rise to thought" as underlining the rational basis for saying "matter cannot give rise to thought."

Jimmy Akin is simply falsifying how it's worded or what the words actually mean.

6:25 "can these two things be reconciled?"

The ones who did that certainly overstepped the limit which was set, not so much by Humani Generis, as by Trent Session V and indeed the Bible itself.

Their solutions arguably contradict condemnations already given.

Sharing

Structure of Reality; Meditating on Truth. Interview with David Rodriguez of the Fatima Center (2/6)
Scripture and Tradition -- Fr JM, 26 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshOfZRPnp0