Drew on Science Accepting "Christianity"

How to Fit Christianity with Science (feat. Aron Ra)
4th May 2018 | Genetically Modified Skeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xBXomSRwa0

I

0:17 Not Catholic. Neo-Catholic.

II

1:22 Not just with a literal reading of the OT, but also with Marc 10:6.

1:27 c. 6000 years ago = Masoretic / Vulgate version of genealogies.
c. 7200 - 7500 years ago = LXX version of genealogies and some other choices of timing

III

2:04 In fact, if someone is just taking creation days as long periods, but leaves genealogies, I don't count him as an outright heretic.

It does conflict with Marc 10:6, but he could be unaware of that, but at least it leaves sufficient small number of sufficient long and overlapping generations between Adam and the writing down of Genesis. This was the position of Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux a bit more than 100 years ago. It was also before carbon dates existed.

IF you think the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are "some kind of metaphor" you are in trouble.

Getting Adam 40 000 years back in time or more leaves no room for historic transmission being reliable up to Joseph in Egypt and Moses. Especially as the much shorter genealogies would be an example of transmission being garbled.

Allowing men existing 40 000 years more to be pre-Adamites conflicts with some important anti-racist doctrine of the Catholic Church. Why? It would not allow a reasonable confidence all men descend from Adam and are eligible for Christ's salvation.

IV

2:44 As determined by science.

You mean - as guessed by scientists? If not, you argue why scientists have a right on this one to be considered as "representing science" rather than just one more or rather less scientific position.

V

3:18 We certainly know that the Sun's light is now what illuminates the day. So did presumably Moses.

3:25 sufficient heat was provided with sufficient light a few days before the Sun. Obviously.

VI

4:11 "pretty well explains how humans developed"

Like how language developed?

Take a look at how I dealt with this attempt by an amateur linguist:

How Did Language Start? - Part 1
27.VII.2020 | Simon Roper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5-gkQmFCiM

How did Language Start? - Part 2: Primate Communication
28.VIII.2020 | Simon Roper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLNJyV_4_FU

my response to both:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : How did language start (a Creationist criticism of Evolutionist Answer)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/08/how-did-language-start-part-1-27.html

Simon Roper made a third one, but it added nothing about the actual process ...

VII

9:13 Yeah, thank you.

Believing what "science" says about human origins does conflict with Catholic dogma. Specifically on original sin.

I'm sticking with Bible and Church Fathers, obviously.

9:31 Plus, obviously, with normal Catholic metaphysics on human soul-spirit.

Thanks again, for noting!

Noted it myself in 2014:

Creation vs. Evolution : Scenario impossible
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/01/scenario-impossible.html

9:54 "they have the same mental capacity"

Again, a major conflict with Catholic scholasticism, as normally it is parts of our mental capacity that prove us spiritual and endowed with immortal, since immaterial, souls.

VIII

10:30 Oral tradition ...

Now within the Biblical timeline, this is not really a problem. Between Homer and Peisistratus, for a comparable number of minimally overlapping generations, Iliad and Odyssey were preserved, and Genesis 2 - 11 (taking Genesis 1 as a vision by Moses) are just a little bit more than 1st song of the Iliad (1st out of 24, same number as for Odyssey):

Creation vs. Evolution : 6078 Words
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/12/6078-words.html

Obviously, it would have been very different if Adam and Eve had lived 78000 years ago ...

IX

11:31 If all these things can happen naturally, as we observe them ...

Can they?

We do not observe the putting in place of these things. We do not observe them happening in contrast with previous states of the universe.

We have observed probable speciation, or missed it, but seen both sides of it (pigeons have arguably undergone specification between Classical Antiquity and Darwin), but we have NOT observed the development of one new gene giving a new function that was not just a variation on an older one, NOR the development of one new type of cell.

We have not observed animal systems of communication developing into human language.

We have not observed either Big Bang or Solar Nebula actually happen.

All of these are guesses, and if any of these are for some reason impossible, we cannot retort that we observed them happen.

X

11:56 Now we know those things behave according to natural forces ...

You actually do not know the Thomistic theory of day and night and of seasons (God turning universe from East to West each day, angels turning several bodies West to East along Zodiac, each month for Moon, each year for Sun) is wrong.

You only know it is out of fashion with scientists.

Angels turning - make that angels moving.

12:19 "humanity has said that before and later found the explanation to be naturalistic"

Key issue : "later found". How so "found"? Getting a certain theory promoted among scientific community? Or actually proving?

In the latter case, why don't you proceed to prove Heliocentrism with only inertial and gravitational forces acting by only material masses of Sun and planets and other stars is in fact only possible truth, rather than presume this as a given?

XI

12:26 You can accurately observe one supernatural cause all the time, namely your own mind doing things that your material body cannot explain the details of.

What exact movements you did with your tongue or lips or I am doing with my fingers on the key board, depend on the ideas we are trying to convey, that being accurately observable as spiritual, and not as depending on the gravitation or intensity of muscular movements opposing it.

XII

12:47 No, it is not evident they are metaphorical only.

It only becomes pseudo-evident if you presume a very big lot on those "scientific" ideas.

12:56 Not just holy texts.

If it didn't happen, how is it different from Silmarillion?

Creation vs. Evolution : Let's Not Silmarillionise the Genesis, Shan't We?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/01/lets-not-silmarillionise-genesis-shant.html

13:12 The alternative to "falsehoods meant to be taken literally" is obviouly truths meant to be taken literally.

The idea of them being metaphors only is very late and cannot be substantiated in earlier Church tradition.

XIII

13:45 You are misrepresenting Hebrews 11:1 grossly.

It doesn't say faith is things hoped for, it says it is their substance. In other words a good reason that the hope is truly there.

And as to "evidence of things not seen" some take faith in scientists (like AronRa) as a substitute for the Christian faith.

XIV

A final note on Neanderthals, Heidelbergians, etc.

I think Neanderthals and Heidelbergians (aka Antecessor, aka Denisovan) were simply pre-Flood races of man.

Post-Flood man is mainly from Cro-Magnon race, with admixture of the other ones.

I think Homo Erectus was an extreme form of Denisovan - and that he's dated with other methods than C14, isn't really older, but samples are from Flood - 2957 BC.