It seems, French people are shy of disputing about truth with me, they have a preference for assuming my English is better and so I need an answer in English.
Here is my French article, from 12.X:
New blog on the kid : L'œnologue à Cana
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2021/10/lnologue-cana.html
This section of a longer interview by Matt Fradd came out today, 15.X, doen't really answer it, but takes up the general question of YEC:
Were Adam & Eve REAL people? w/ Suan Sonna
15th Oct. 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://youtu.be/xMgN_G-IQTc
And here are a few comments on it:
2:36 "it is never explained where Cain's wife came from"
Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.
No, these were not all of them later than Cain's wife (they were later than Cain, since he was first-born). Cain married a sister, born to Adam and Eve before Cain killed Abel, or possibly a niece.
3:22 The idea that men evolved from some kind of apes (we are, on Evolutionist terms, supposed to branch off against Chimps, after our common ancestor with them branched off from Gorillas) is untenable for the reason that language cannot evolve that way.
Let me specific, if you say "Latin evolved to French" you may be somewhat abusing the word evolved, since there was intelligent design involved (when "evolving" Romance future tense, new - Romance only - conditional tense or mood, when replacing the etymon for solem with a diminutive *soliculum so it doesn't coincide with that for solum, hence "sol" is only for "solum" and "solem" being replaced by "*soliculum" is therefore replaced intelligently by "soleil", and, thirdly, when replacing clumsy use of Latin forms with a new orthography, with rules originally roughly matching those of Alcuin's pronunciation of Latin), but while you may abuse the word "evolved" you are still stating in a rough and ready way an undeniable fact.
However, if you say "human speech evolved from ape communications" you are not stating any undeniable fact, you are even stating a complete impossibility. Chomsky, who is an atheist, when pondering what sets human language apart, used to, previously, before recently "called to order" (I think it was), earn the nickname "the Creationist linguist" because he thought a mutation gave us human speech.
Ape "speech" deals with global signals of mainly emotional or, perhaps in some cases, "irritational" or "emotion triggering" sound, and one signal = one sound. They can be taught, but don't naturally deal with, any signal composed by smaller signals, i e sentence composed by words, even then they cannot go beyond two "want/give me" + "apple" = "give me the apple." And the non-composed signal is not composed itself by any ordered sound sequence. Sentence = morpheme = phoneme.
Human speech differs on this line very clearly, since we have double articulation:
1) sentence = morpheme + morpheme (+morpheme ...)
2) morpheme = phoneme + phoneme (+phoneme ...)
No Evolutionist ever gave a satisfying explanation on how the one could have changed into the other.
Some swag pretended that when a tribe of apes came along, someone came up with the sound sequence "tiger" (arguably a stand-in for a word with same meaning in an unknown language) and could call out when tigers came and thereby save the tribe. What really happens is, apes have signals meaning "tiger / lion type danger, flee appropriate way"
It's like pretending communicating in traffic signs could evolve into literature.
- Francophone8
- Theistic evolution is an acceptable idea, because it means that God directed things according to His will, and it explains how life began in the first place. However, it does not explain whether or not He made everything evolve from the same single-celled organisms, or whether He created different types of life separately (plants and animals, for example). Even though the evolution of languages is sometimes compared to biological évolution, your comparison does not quite work as the artificial modification of language is not the only form of language change, and perhaps not even the primary cause of such.
"No Evolutionist ever gave a satisfying explanation on how the one could have changed into the other." While this may be true for their explanations of how language came to be, it also applies to their explanations about the beginning of life itself.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Francophone8 "Theistic evolution is an acceptable idea, because it means that God directed things according to His will,"
- The Apostolic Creed used to have twelve points, now it is only "Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem cæli et terræ," and no more?
- The point "Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem cæli et terræ," used to have catechetic points attached about Adam and Eve, and the Fall, as next point starts to deal with Redemption, but now it is only the bare words?
If that is NOT what you are saying, you need to work on showing Theistic evolution as compatible with quite a few other points. Including obviously an Adam that is both historically well known to Moses (impossible if he lived 40 000 BP or earlier) and ancestor of all today (impossible to highly unlikely if his life starting 4004 or 5199 or 5500 BC is to coincide with archaeological items carbon dated to those dates).
"and it explains how life began in the first place."
w a i t ... how is that compatible with next item:
"However, it does not explain whether or not He made everything evolve from the same single-celled organisms, or whether He created different types of life separately (plants and animals, for example)."
First of all, how biological life bagan in the first place is quite well explained with strict Creationism (you know, Young Earth Creationism).
Second, if God created different types, like dogs and cats, like hedgehogs and bears, for instance, or like roses and oaks, for instance, we are not talking evolution at all, we are talking variation within a kind.
Third, the Biblical account, accepted by Church Fathers as true, including those who held that the word "day" and related words "evening and morning" had another meaning than the normal, specifies very clearly, it is indeed different types like dog and cat etc. If you only mean three different types, or four, archaea, fungi, plants and animals, you are indeed talking Evolution, but that doesn't in the least show why it would be acceptable.
"Even though the evolution of languages is sometimes compared to biological évolution, your comparison does not quite work as the artificial modification of language is not the only form of language change, and perhaps not even the primary cause of such."
E x c u s e ... m e ...
did you bother to read what I wrote? Not just skim it through, but actually ...
r e a d ?
My main point is, human language cannot evolve from ape communications, and man can therefore not have evolved from any type of ape. I introduced reserves about the aptitude of the word "evolution" about Latin to French, only because I was stating at the end of the paragraph that // if you say "Latin evolved to French" ... while you may abuse the word "evolved" you are still stating in a rough and ready way an undeniable fact. //
And the only reason I said that is as intro to // However, if you say "human speech evolved from ape communications" you are not stating any undeniable fact, you are even stating a complete impossibility. //
I did not ever pretend during all of this process to use "language evolution" (as said, not a good name for the process, and not a good use of "evolution") as comparison to biological evolution. The point is, if biological evolution happened from cat to dog, arguably "meow" would evolve phonetically to "wooff" - and it's not anyway near how impossible it could be to evolve discourse from "eek, eek, eek" or however apes pronounce one of their signals.
[I had said] // "No Evolutionist ever gave a satisfying explanation on how the one could have changed into the other." //
"While this may be true for their explanations of how language came to be, it also applies to their explanations about the beginning of life itself."
While abiogenesis (usual sense) is also impossible, it is not the same impossibility as man evolving from apes, due to, for instance, the combined need and impossibility of "eek eek eek" evolving, if so, into "hello, how nice to see you!"
- Francophone8
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl The Apostle's creed does not contradict what I said, or rather, what I said does not contradict the Apostle's creed. "Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem cæli et terræ" — this means that God is the creator, but it says nothing about how He actually created (did He create everything in one single moment? Or did He make evolution happen, controlling its progress? If so, did He begin with single-celled organisms, or did He create every basic category of each type of plants, animals, etc., separately? These are examples how He could have created, which is not to say that there aren't others). Variation within a kind is still considered to be evolution, but depending on how you define "kind", it can be called macro-evolution. The fact that God is the creator explains how life begam in the first place, with theistic evolution, one must still believe that God is the Primary Mover. Also, remember that the Bible says that for God, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. God is outside of time.
W h y d o y o u t h i n k t h a t M o s e s k n e w A d a m ? I f y o u s a y t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e b e l i e f t h a t h e i s t h e a u t h o r o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h t h e n y o u m u s t a s l o b e l i e v e t h a t h e w a s i n s p i r e d b y t h e H o l y S p i r i t w h i c h m e a n s t h a t h e d i d n o t n e e d t o h a v e f i r s t h a n d k n o w l e d g e o f A d a m.
You are talking about the evolution of language, something that already exists, and the introduction of the faculty of language, or of language itself. They are different. Also, language would only make sense for humans, when God already created Adam and Eve, giving them souls, so even if one does hold theistic evolution to be true, such an idea would not posit that human language came from apes' grunts.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Francophone8 "The Apostle's creed does not contradict what I said, or rather, what I said does not contradict the Apostle's creed. "Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem cæli et terræ" — this means that God is the creator, but it says nothing about how He actually created (did He create everything in one single moment? Or did He make evolution happen, controlling its progress? If so, did He begin with single-celled organisms, or did He create every basic category of each type of plants, animals, etc., separately? These are examples how He could have created, which is not to say that there aren't others)."
Again, you forget, that the Apostles' Creed includes more than just this, and that each part of the creed involves catechetic teaching beyond there mere words.
The article, taken catechetically, before extending over into Adam's and Eve's fall and its consequences, involves God creating in the way that the Bible says. For the six days, Moses had no historic, only prophetic, knowledge, given by God.
"Variation within a kind is still considered to be evolution, but depending on how you define "kind", it can be called macro-evolution."
Since basically NO Young Earth Creationists today deny variation within a kind, and since NO such variation brings forth anything radically new (come on, Indian Longeared Hedgehog has some more length to his ears than his ancestor couple on the Ark or his cousin in Europe!) it is formalistic abuse of language to state that it is "still considered to be evolution."
"The fact that God is the creator explains how life begam in the first place, with theistic evolution, one must still believe that God is the Primary Mover."
With Theistic Evolution, one has a "god" with same skillset as the one we worship (not unlike the observation about Islamic Allah), but morally very unlike the One in Three we worship, who set death and inanity as a punishment for Adam's sin, and a reminder we need Christ's redemption.
"Also, remember that the Bible says that for God, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. God is outside of time."
Yes, but would you kindly explain the relevance of that observation for the question at hand?
"W h y d o y o u t h i n k t h a t M o s e s k n e w A d a m ? I f y o u s a y t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e b e l i e f t h a t h e i s t h e a u t h o r o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h t h e n y o u m u s t a s l o b e l i e v e t h a t h e w a s i n s p i r e d b y t h e H o l y S p i r i t w h i c h m e a n s t h a t h e d i d n o t n e e d t o h a v e f i r s t h a n d k n o w l e d g e o f A d a m."
Whatever needs Moses personally had of historic (not first hand, but reliably mediated) knowledge of Adam, we need him to have this knowledge. The bare claim such and such a hagiographer was inspired by the Holy Ghost is not enough, we need historical reliability for the circumstances verifying this claim. Therefore, the historic books of the Bible are first of all transmitted as history, before we also accept them as being inerrant and infallible, by divine inspiration.
Again, I did not say"first hand knowledge"- I said reliable historic transmission.
"You are talking about the evolution of language, something that already exists, and the introduction of the faculty of language, or of language itself. They are different."
If your English had been so good that it were a good choice of you to debate me in English rather than in your native French, you would perhaps already have noticed that I said they are very different.
"Also, language would only make sense for humans, when God already created Adam and Eve, giving them souls,"
Indeed.
"so even if one does hold theistic evolution to be true, such an idea would not posit that human language came from apes' grunts."
No, the population evolving needs to be fully functioning on all levels while evolving. This means genes must be transmitted in viable chromosomes (another block against evolution, theistic or otherwise), but it also means, all of the time, the population needs to be able to communicate. Therefore, if you posit a biological evolutionary transition from apes to Adam's body, you need to posit also an evolutionary transition from their grunts to his language. The exact thing you just admitted as being impossible.
The debate with Francophone8 continues in French on this post:
Répliques Assorties : Francophone8 me répond en français, on continue ici
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2021/10/francophone8-me-repond-en-francais-on.html
3:34 "retroactive consequences of the fall" ... no and noper.
The fall into Evolutionism among French clergy did not retroactively trigger any epidemic of clerical boy abuse back into the Renaissance.
And if Pope St. Pius V had to deal with one in Rome, it may be because the Renaissance there really was fairly Pagan at times - from before his times.
4:00 Suan Sonna just repeated the heresy of pre-Adamism, which was condemned in perhaps clearer terms than in Humani Generis, when Isaac La Peyrère was put on the Index.
It's a Judaising heresy, in which Genesis 1:26 and following refer to a creation never meant to serve God in such a special way as Adam and Eve, on that interpretation (not share by all Jews) the first Jews.
"La Peyrère's pre-Adamite contentions were fiercely criticized by Protestant, Jewish and Catholic authorities. In 1656 after a storm of indignation the Prae-Adamitae was publicly burned in Paris. In particular, La Peyrère fell foul of the Catholic Church, while in the Spanish Netherlands which was then under the Habsburgs. Here he was arrested and held in prison for six months and only released after renouncing his views and converting to the Catholic faith. He subsequently went to Rome and begged Pope Alexander VII for forgiveness, retracting his earlier views formally. Following this La Peyrère became a lay member of the Oratory of Jesus in Paris and lived out the rest of his life, from 1659 until 1676."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_La_Peyr%C3%A8re#Later_life
4:52 "oh, so day isn't being literal"
Bad conclusion. The timespan as such can literally apply even if there is no Sun to mark it.
And perhaps prompted by some kind of evolutionist background before that.
As for St. Augustine adressing that, this is an urban legend. Popular among Evolution believing "Catholics".
Yes, he took liberties with the word "day", but only with that word and the idea of a chronological order - since he considered all of creation took place in one moment.
But he also very clearly allowed for a literal reading, and in De Genesi ad Litteram book I he clearly does state how in such a case there could be days before the Sun.
In book VI, after outlining his peculiar theory on a 1 moment creation, he goes on to state "but taking it" (I'm not sure if the word was literally) "is good enough for beginners."
Please also note, when St. Thomas arrives to Paris, and writes a commentary on the Sententiae Lombardi, he is attracted to the 1 moment theory. When he later writes the Summa, he states that the one moment theory was only held by Augustine and Origen all others (who commented on it) holding six literal days.
5:20 "a lot of difficult bending and twisting with the evidence"
Hmmm ... not really.
But Suan is of course profiting from the fact that here, no one is asking him for examples in any deeper way (33 seconds left of the video don't leave room for that, and it seems this was the section dealing with YEC).
Also, the exact positions of St. Augustine and young St. Thomas are also YEC and also would require exactly the same "turning every stone in the evidence" as the normal literal six days version.
after the video - I don't think Suan Sonna ever even tried to estimate when Adam and Eve were alive.
If you accept the carbon dates for diverse human, including Neanderthal and Denisovan skeleta, the position runs into a conundrum.
- You pick Adam lived 6000 - 7500 years ago, and that therefore lots of men had lived before him, with agriculture and all. Avoiding polygenism becomes very problematic on this view - carbon dates "from this period" are of a humanity already spread out over continents and already beginning to show the diverse haplogroups (Y chromosomes and mitochondriae) as well as race types we see today. This also speaks against actual universality of the Flood, ten generations after Adam. Result apart from that: lots of remains having shown clearly human behaviour become pre-human. The soul becomes very strictly, not just invisible but undetectable.
- You pick Adam lived c. 40 000, 50 000, perhaps up to 100 000 years ago. You get very bad conditions of historic transmission from Adam to Moses. You also get a direct trace of bad transmission, since it is impossible to make genealogy overlaps in Genesis 5 and 11 add up to 35 000 or more years.
No comments:
Post a Comment