No, I am NOT a JW, Whatever Some May Think

Found the channel of an ex-JW.

Video I

Someone at the door learns about call books!
7th Febr 2022 | JW Science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2cih5AFlg4

By the way, if you answer my comments, I do not ask your consent before I republish the argument.

This is a bit different from the call book, though, because YOU have consented to be on youtube known as "JW Science!" and that's the handle your words appear under on my blogs, should this happen. And you cannot pretend that this comment of yours was private data when youtube used to present on comboxes "leave a public comment" (it's now "leave a comment" but their older policy was more transparent). I suppose you realise, while some others don't there is a vast difference between a JW call book and my blog Assorted retorts.

I left a few comments on two other of your videos, if you like the debate and don't mind having your answers to my arguments shown with my rebuttals on that blog, you have an extra opportunity.

Unlike the JW's (which I suppose you know) I am strictly YEC, not Day-Age. This means, the Flood in 2957 BC (according to Roman martyrology, I'm a Catholic), it was sufficiently close to the very first created atmosphere on earth for it to have contained a very low level of carbon 14.

So, after this, if you answer, I suppose your consent is given ...

Video II

What was happening, 6,000 years ago in Iraq?
15th April 2022 | JW Science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD9DmbauzJE

I

0:58 No, it doesn't say Eden was "in between Tigris and Euphrates".

It says it had a river that split into four, two of these being Tigris and Euphrates. As today, post-Flood, Tigris and Euphrates converge, and as this means they diverged, one can presume, before the Flood, they were running the other direction.

One option is, the one river was actually flowing in the river bed of what in post-Flood times is Jordan. I am willing to take that, but the indication in Genesis 2 (taken this way) would fit several different places between Holy Land and Persian Gulf.

It would seem Jerusalem was West of Eden, since Adam was both created and buried there (buried under Calvary) according to Church Fathers. But Eve was created in Eden, and I think that could well have been 32 km (160 stades) east of Jerusalem, namely Emmaus Nikopolis.

II

1:42 "all dating back before then"

By what dating method?

We certainly have evidence of civilisations and thousands or millions of people being alive in Iraq at the founding of Woolley's Ur.

What you are NOT providing, but confide in "science" as you earlier confided in Witnesses, is, proof positive that this founding of Woolley's Ur was 6000 years ago.

I do not use the Vulgate Masoretic timeline, but a LXX timeline, so, to me, the world was created 7200 years ago. You find the details in the Traditional Roman Martyrology for Christmas day. Abraham being according to that text born 2015 BC.

Now, Genesis 14 must have happened when Abraham was c. 80 (between 75, when his vocation was, and 86, I think, when he got Ishmael by Hagar). This means the Biblical date for Genesis 14 is c. 1935 BC.

Now one place is evacuated as mentioned there, namely Asason Tamar. Thanks to Osgood, I know the clarifying text from II Chronicles that says this is En-Geddi.

Now, the Chalcolithic of En-Geddi features temple treasures evacuated on reed mats and their carbon date is 3500 BC.

This means, the real date 1935 BC is carbon dated to 3500 BC. With 1565 extra years, presumably the carbon 14 level was at 82.7 pmC, like you find in samples from AD 385 or thereabout (and as then the level was 100 pmC, the 82.7 reflect actual decay, not an initial low level).

If you cannot be sure carbon dated "3500 BC" reflects an actual 3500 BC, why presume a carbon dated "4000 BC" reflects an actual 4000 BC?

Or if you think you can be sure, where is your evidence?

Video III

Why I Left, 3 Questions Jehovahs Witnesses Can't Answer
27th Jan. 2022 | JW Science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykFPl5K7YSc

I

1:56 It is actually on the one making the claim "homo sapiens originated 400 000 years in Ethiopia" to provide the proof positive, rather than on Christians to provide a disproof.

I can in fact disprove the idea that man speaking with human language (whether the point is reached at sapiens or "already" at erectus is beside the point) cannot develop from beasts not speaking human language.

I can also provide a historical proof against there being a date like 400 000 years ago, namely, the Bible seems pretty legitimate as chronicle of world history from very early after Adam's creation, and Adam (with descendants) doesn't seem to have bumped into earlier men, or he or his descendants would have discovered they were not the first around.

I can also provide some arguments, reasonable to my view, that the methods (non-historical) by which dates like 400 000 years ago are not reliable and certainly not proof.

But none of these things meet the requirement of proving (presumably scientifically, not historically) that homo sapiens was not around since 400 000 years ago in Ethiopia. I can only state, how about making some kind of proof why this would matter, like that "science" and "archaeology" together "saying" something is always prima facie proof what they say is true?

2:06 I think Adam was created on the coordinates of Jerusalem. Outside Eden. Eden was east of that and Eve was created in Eden. I don't think Adam would have walked as far as Baghdad coordinates on day six so I highly doubt he went as far east as Baghdad.

Emmaus (if east of Jerusalem) seems a more realistic option. Would also make the Eucharist with the Emmaus disciples literally "paradise regained" (even geographically).

Bonus point : it seems to be in Ayalon, so Joshua came there too. Extra bonus point, even if Adam was more than we, would he, without God's special help, have made the 32 km (160 stades) in time to both name beasts and go to sleep at 3pm while God created Eve? So, if God gave him special help and also gave the Emmaus disciples special help, that's another sign of this being a fairly good spot to prefer over Baghdad.

II

2:34 "400 000 years of archaeology"

Let's quote wiki: "One of the first sites to undergo archaeological excavation was Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments in England. John Aubrey (1626–1697) was a pioneer archaeologist who recorded numerous megalithic and other field monuments in southern England. He was also ahead of his time in the analysis of his findings. He attempted to chart the chronological stylistic evolution of handwriting, medieval architecture, costume, and shield-shapes." (article Archaeology, a linea First Excavations)

Even if John Aubrey did this when he was newborn (clearly impossible in a sense that talking snakes aren't, if angelic beings use their apparatus, especially a fallen one), he excavated Stonehenge less than 400 years ago, not 400 000 years ago.

So, we do NOT have 400 000 years of archaeology. You presumably mean we have in very recent years had archaeologists make claims about dating some of the excavations to 400 000 years back. That's a very different claim. There is no 400 000 years of targetting archaeological knowledge behind that archaeological claim of having knowledge.

III

3:49 IIa) 5000 years ago, 2957 BC, the Flood left lots of sediment, beast fossils, plant fossils, like some in Karroo considered from fauna types in them as "Permian, Triassic and Jurassic", some in coal mines considered as "Carboniferous" and so on.
IIb) when considering "kind" as equalling "species" you put the problem on the wrong level. There was ONE couple of hedgehogs on the Ark, and from them we have today SEVENTEEN species of hedgehogs in FIVE genera. Hedgehogs are a subfamily, not a species, in taxonomy.

4:39 Have you heard of the Sahul-Sunda landbridge? Back in the ice age?

Like, Creationists consider the ice age was from Flood and ensuing centuries, I'd consider that as 2957 BC to 2607 BC (when Noah died). And scientists have linked Sahul Sunda to sth like a landbridge in precisely the ice age, their problem being only they misdate the ice age.

5:00 On CMI, the reason cangaroos and Tasmanian devils came to Oz, that being very far out, is, being shy, they fled from placental mammals.

Luckily for the cangaroos, Sahul Sunda was flooded in the Younger Dryas (just at the end of Noah's lifetime, the very years before 2607 BC) when the ice age ended and the sea levels rose. No teleportation needed, though it would not have been impossible either.

IV

6:02 Finally, you have a point I don't need to disagree on, as I am a creationist, "but" not a JW.*

Generally speaking dates this far back have some issues historically as to reliable chronology.

607 BC is a standin for more mainstream 539 BC?

St. Gregory of Tours, writing about events about 1000 years later, considered Clovis died in 555 AD, and St. Martin died 444 AD, and obviously this was symbolically connected to Christ dying 33 AD. It so happens, St. Martin actually died earlier, in 400, and it was his successor St. Brice who died 444. And Clovis in 510.

Generally speaking, the further back, the less reliable chronology.

* It can be added, they are now into Day Age, not pure YEC!

V

Dialogue

TruthHasSpoken

Congrats on leaving ! Your questions are good ones for Witnesses. Watchtower error's by taking the bible at times literalistically (the words), not literally (the meaning the author intended to convey) and at other times visa versa when they shouldn't. They have a hard time interpreting the text as it's not their book to begin with, and they have decapitated it from the faith from which it came. The Kangaroo question (eastern grey Kangaroo) is one I ask Witnesses. I never get an answer and I can see them stumble always when I ask it, though I do with gentleness and respect.

TruthHasSpoken

@Vusi Mngomezulu Still waiting for your answer as to what is in error with timeline below, all using Watchtower's literature. Watchtower's own literature proves Jerusalem fell in 586/587 bc (thus 1914 is bunk, and WT is a man-made organization, not of God, warned of in scripture)

539 bc - Babylon falls to Persia (Awake, 6/12/12 p 12)
556 bc - Nebonidus reigned for 17 yrs, the Babylonians defeated him (Aid to Bible Understanding, p 409)
555/6 bc - Labiashi-Marduk reigned for < 1 year, succeeded by Nebonidus (A2BU, p 1196)
560 bc - Neriglissar reigned 4 years, succeed by Labiashi-Marduk (A2BU, p 178)
562 bc - Evil-Merodach reigned 2 years, succeeded by Neriglissar (A2BU, p 178)
605 bc - Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years, succeed by his son Evil (Awil) Merodach (Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, pg 480)
586/587 bc - Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Kings 25:8-9, New World Translation)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Kangaroo question (eastern grey Kangaroo) is one I ask Witnesses."

As a Catholic (I converted back in 1988, before the infamous "CCC" and its promotion of evolution, taken by some as nec plus ultra of the magisterium, am currently accepting Pope Michael as Pope - at least he doesn't believe either Adam had lots of not quite human sapiens ancestry or that he lived 400 000 years ago), as a Catholic, what is the problem?

I think Tas Walker and Jonathan Sarfati could answer it quite well, I have simply little patience to listen to when this comes in the video, since at 3:06 or something he already tears my patience to pieces with his total transfer of confidence in Watchtower club to having it in "science" club instead. Btw, while they are not Catholics, and while your attitude helps to keep them away from Catholicism, they are clearly not JWs!

Vusi Mngomezulu

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Please answer my simple questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Vusi Mngomezulu I cannot see the comment you made to Truth has spoken.

I also do not know why you think you posed any question to me. I don't see any comment between my own one and your words "Please answer my simple questions."

Perhaps you meant to ask Truth has spoken to do so and clicked an answer button on the wrong comment?

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl " "CCC" and its promotion of evolution,"

Note, there is no dogmatic / doctrinal stance on creationism vs evolution. Catholics can take either side. IMHO, science points to evolution but within that framework, God did indeed have an original male and female human couple. The point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things.

" your attitude helps to keep them away from Catholicism,"

How so ? Note, my conversation's with Witnesses is quite varied. It depends on what they bring up in conversation usually (evolution is one of them) but most often, I focus on the Deity of Christ, what the word "begotten" means, what the word "Son of God" means, and how it is that they know that their bible's table of contents is true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken You forgot the case about the particular cangaroo species ... I'll perhaps resume watching. Here is anyway on your arguments, not in the same order:

"The point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things."

1) Is that the point of Genesis 49:10? I thought the point of that is, the Messiah came before Judaea lost sovereign state status, after Herod I died?
2) Is there anyone else than Moses you think is the author?
3) If you consider the point of Genesis 5 and 11 is not chronological, please show how Genesis 5 and 11 are supposed to fit with your idea that "[t]he point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things."

" Note, my conversation's with Witnesses is quite varied."

But your attitude on Creation vs Evolution is certainly part of what keep Creationist Ministries like the named Australians of CMI to consider Catholicism is the true Church!

"It depends on what they bring up in conversation usually (evolution is one of them) but most often, I focus on the Deity of Christ, what the word "begotten" means, what the word "Son of God" means,"

Sarfati and Walker being Trinitarian, they have no need of that.

"Note, there is no dogmatic / doctrinal stance on creationism vs evolution. Catholics can take either side."

Would you mind writing that in a mail to the Archdiocese of Paris as well as the FSSPX in Paris, also known as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet? I am being treated as either a JW, or at least unduly influenced by them, because I am creationist.

However, seriously, I think you are wrong. Humani Generis did not allow for Adam having parents that were truly human (if they had been, he would not have been the first man), and without such, there is no possibility they could have been talking, so he would have grown up as a feral child. The non-traditional alternative that Pius XII allowed learned people to defend in learned debates is a dead end for this reason.

"science points to evolution"

Can you explain what "science" means in this context? Is astrology a science? Does European and Romanian hedgehogs evolving from a common ancestor equal evolution, or is the word for some vaster thing, like millions and billions of years and cats and dogs having a common ancestor?

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl “You forgot the case about the particular cangaroo species”

I don’t follow you. My question to Jehovah’s Witnesses is “how is it that the Eastern Grey Kangaroo is only found in Australia ?” (and neither is there archeological evidence anywhere else in the world for it). This is an example only. I never, ever get a good answer from them. If one takes Genesis in a literalist way, Noah and the Ark - the flood waters covering the entire earth - only occurring some 5000 years ago, one has difficulty answering how this land animal traversed the sea … only to be found in Australia.

"The point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things."

In context, I was referring to the creation story of Gen 1.

“Is there anyone else than Moses you think is the author?”

See the article on Catholic dot com website written by Jimmy Akin, Who Wrote the Books of Moses. This is another topic on which the Catholic Church does not take a doctrinal stance. It matters not to my faith at all whether there were one or multiple authors. It remains ... the Written Word of God, inspired by God. I leave it there.

“But your attitude on Creation vs Evolution is certainly part of what keep Creationist Ministries like the named Australians of CMI to consider Catholicism is the true Church!”

I echo the teaching of the Catholic Church. If they don’t agree then it’s on them.

“Would you mind writing that in a mail to the Archdiocese of Paris as well as the FSSPX in Paris, also known as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet?”

Write and ask them to show you when and where the Catholic Church has taken a doctrinal stance on evolution vs creationism ? They won't be able to.

“I am being treated as either a JW, or at least unduly influenced by them, because I am creationist.”

That someone would do so is wrong. It reflects the sinfulness of man, not the teaching of the Church.

“Humani Generis did not allow for Adam having parents that were truly human (if they had been, he would not have been the first man),”

The Church teaches that God infused an original set of human beings with souls, whether this came from creationism or evolution. And that this original set of human being with souls, sinned, and that sin caused a rupture between God and man ... and God would eventually heal that rupture (God becoming man and offering a perfect sacrifice to heal the rupture)

"science points to evolution"

Science, archeology specifically, shows evidence of the human species evolving over time. At some point, God infused that species with human souls. Copying from a Catholic dot com article titled Adam, Eve, and Evolution as they articulate it better than me :

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "My question to Jehovah’s Witnesses is"

Ah, thank you for giving it!

" I never, ever get a good answer from them."

Well, they aren't exactly experts in Creation Science.

"In context, I was referring to the creation story of Gen 1."

The point is, Genesis 1 actually has a chronological relation to Genesis 11 stating Abram left Ur of the Chaldees via genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11.

Jimmy is as usual widely off the hook on matters where he differs from Fundies (rather than from Protestants or Jews or Atheists)

"Despite the fact that he figures prominently in the books and that they quote him frequently, even relating long speeches by him, none of the books state that they were written by Moses. They do not identify an author."

That is beside the point. Neither does the Gospel of Matthew contain a verse saying it was by Matthew the Levite and former tax collector who was one of the twelve. Authorship (Matthew or Luke, Moses or David) is decided by tradition, like genre of fiction or historic (at least purported) fact (Gospel vs Lion Witch Wardrobe).

"They also contain parts that could not have been written by Moses, such as the material recording his death at the end of Deuteronomy, and indicating that some time had passed since this event: “There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deut. 34:10)."

Yeah, the precisely last chapter of the five books was actually written by Joshua.

"There are other passages that it’s hard to imagine Moses writing, such as the one stressing his humility: “Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all men that were on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3)."

It's not a cultural universal that meekness is a good thing, and Moses could have seen it as a handicap. A humble man may not write the words "I have the Christian virtue of humility" but he may very well write "I have a real low self esteem". I think that is exactly what Moses meant. And God LATER revealed that this was a good thing. In II Kings 6:22 King David uses the word "humilis" in a way that doesn't convey he regards it as a virtue, he regarded it as a tactic.

Hence, Moses' real humility is not a proof he cannot have written he was the most humble.

"In the 1700s, scholars began to propose that there were certain identifiable sources that were used in the composition of the Pentateuch."

Did Jimmy Akin even check if Astruc and Wellhausen were put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, before it was abolished?

"I echo the teaching of the Catholic Church. If they don’t agree then it’s on them."

In fact THEY echo the constant teaching of the Catholic Church over centuries, you don't. It's on you.

"Write and ask them to show you when and where the Catholic Church has taken a doctrinal stance on evolution vs creationism ? They won't be able to."

I am humbler than any other man around here - in the sense of having a social handicap, which they acerbate. I don't expect them to answer me, any of them, they have avoided it in the past. I was asking you for the service Aaron gave Moses before the Pharao ...

"That someone would do so is wrong. It reflects the sinfulness of man, not the teaching of the Church."

That sinfulness of man reflects the consensus of clergy in the Archdiocese.

"The Church teaches that God infused an original set of human beings with souls"

Indeed.

"whether this came from creationism or evolution."

Pius XII refused to himself decide on it.

Pius XII was however not saying Adam's physical ancestry could have had rational souls.

Now, the important thing is, if Adam was ever conceived and inherited anything with whatever mutations, he was a child. And if his progenitors had no souls, they also had no human language, meaning he would have grown up as a feral child.

"evidence of the human species evolving over time. At some point, God infused that species with human souls."

Yes, at its very beginning. Anything else would have made Adam a feral child, before he sinned.

"It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance"

"Allows for" is overdoing what Pius XII actually said in Humani Generis § 36. He doesn't say that the teaching "allows for" it, he says the magisterium does at present not forbid learned men to investigate it. I think the feral child argument would close the investigation, rationally speaking (but Archdiocese of Paris AND Trads here have not shown themselves rational).

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "It's on you."

The Church has no doctrine on creationism vs evolution. Period. Nothing here is ON me.

That said, just HOW is it that the Eastern Grey Kangaroo is only found in Australia ??

"It's ON you" to explain it. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "Period."

Yeah, period between 1950 and now, basically. What about the other centuries? I mean, unlike me, you consider the Vatican II Sect rather than the Vatican in Exile as continuing the Vatican from 100 years ago, right, and by extension previous centuries too?

"HOW is it that the Eastern Grey Kangaroo is only found in Australia ??"

I forgot to repeat it in this thread (still somewhat doused from a few kicks on the forehead I got on Holy Saturday morning), but in my comments on time signature 4:39 and 5:00 below my comment on time signature 3:49, I answered JW Science! like this:

// Have you heard of the Sahul-Sunda landbridge? Back in the ice age?

Like, Creationists consider the ice age was from Flood and ensuing centuries, I'd consider that as 2957 BC to 2607 BC (when Noah died). And scientists have linked Sahul Sunda to sth like a landbridge in precisely the ice age, their problem being only they misdate the ice age.

On CMI, the reason cangaroos and Tasmanian devils came to Oz, that being very far out, is, being shy, they fled from placental mammals.

Luckily for the cangaroos, Sahul Sunda was flooded in the Younger Dryas (just at the end of Noah's lifetime, the very years before 2607 BC) when the ice age ended and the sea levels rose. No teleportation needed, though it would not have been impossible either. //

Freely after CMI, including the Australians Sarfati and Walker, as mentioned (they don't use the Roman martyrology for Christmas day, but Ussher as Biblical chronology, unlike me).

@TruthHasSpoken You also have not answered the point that an evolutionary origin for Adam would involve his being a human child to non-human beings which could not have had a human language, and he would have grown up a feral child - do NOT attribute that kind of cruelty to God!

TruthHasSpoken

But it seems

he took it away

after notification reached me

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Have you heard of the Sahul-Sunda landbridge? "

Still does not explain why Eastern Grey Kangaroos are ONLY found in Australia and that no archeological evidence of them (bones) are found anywhere else. Timor included.

"the reason cangaroos and Tasmanian devils came to Oz, that being very far out, is, being shy, they fled from placental mammals."

And ... where is the evidence to support this claim ?

"Yeah, period between 1950 and now, basically."

Period. The Catholic Church has never, ever had a doctrinal position. Before 1950. After 1950. Never. And if you think that it did, just cite the Church writing. No conjecture, no personal opinions needed. Just the Church writing that backs up your position.

Should be easy if you are right. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "Still does not explain why Eastern Grey Kangaroos are ONLY found in Australia"

Well, because they were getting away from certain placental mammals ... which came along elsewhere.

"And ... where is the evidence to support this claim ?"

CMI, being precisely Australians, ought to know how shy kangaroos are, right?

"and that no archeological evidence of them (bones) are found anywhere else. Timor included."

Why presume that small populations should leave palaentological traces where they just pass? MOST traces of the past are gone.

I'll give you another question, on the same logic as yours, which evolutionists explain that manner : why is it that nowhere, ever, anywhere, in the whole world, two layers of different periods of land vertebrates lie straight on top of each other, as far as we have found? Evolutionists will have it, most traces of the past are gone, so, sure, on this or that or sundry place, a Permian fauna will have lived there, on land, and later on a Triassic fauna, but they didn't both leave traces we found, because that would be just too rare a coincidence, and so on for any other pair of two periods, let alone triple of three ...

"And if you think that it did, just cite the Church writing."

Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo; ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo; Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo.

Martyrologium Romanum for December 25th. At your service.

"Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence — which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book."

St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 13, "Chapter 1.— Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted." At your service.

On top of your theory requiring an ancestry which would have left young Adam a feral child, it obviously also requires death before sin, if not of men, at least of creatures very like men - sth which St. Augustine says here is impossible.

Do you want more?

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Well, because they were getting away from certain placental mammals ... which came along elsewhere."

And those placental animals chased them all the way to Australia ! That's quite a journey from Turkey ! Why did the placental animals not ALSO go to Australia ?

"St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 13, "Chapter 1.— Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted."

I love St Augustine. Have read many of his writings, including his tractates. His words that you cited do not constitute Catholic Doctrine.

Interesting George. Taken in a literalist interpretation, the Old Testament flood (and Noah's Ark) occurred some 5,000 years ago. YET .. the last Ice Age was some ~12,000 years ago. Do you see a problem with your land bridge hypothesis ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "And those placental animals chased them all the way to Australia ! That's quite a journey from Turkey !"

Cizre (landing place, Mt Judi) to Sydney : 13 733 km. Ice age, 350 years (Flood to death of Noah). 39 km 237 m per year.

"Why did the placental animals not ALSO go to Australia ?"

They didn't hurry, since less shy, and the Sahul Sunda landbrige or near such was flooded and the gap very much widened 350 years after the Flood, in the Younger Dryas.

"St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 13, "Chapter 1.— Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted."

"I love St Augustine. Have read many of his writings, including his tractates."

OK ... in which of them does he show any openness to Deep Time?

"His words that you cited do not constitute Catholic Doctrine."

By themselves, if there are other Church Fathers that contradict him on the point and supposing this had no Biblical backing in St. Paul, which it does ... can you:
a) identify and read the relevant passage in St. Paul and show a chink where you can wedge in death before Adam?
b) show another Church Father or himself at another time promoting Deep Time or a mere openness to it?

"Taken in a literalist interpretation, the Old Testament flood (and Noah's Ark) occurred some 5,000 years ago. YET .. the last Ice Age was some ~12,000 years ago. Do you see a problem with your land bridge hypothesis ?"

A total impossibility - for those who take the 12 000 years ago in a literal interpretation.

I reckon carbon years can be due to both decay and lower initial carbon 14 content. Have I made it clear how I "get around" the problem?

Carbon 14 in 2957 BC : 1.4 pmC (1/64 of present value or of 100 pmC). Adds 35 000 carbon years to the actual age.
Carbon 14 when Noah died (as per Babel beginning and identifying it with Göbekli Tepe), that is in 2607 BC : 43 pmC. Adds 7000 carbon years.

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "can you"

Hans, I have no interest in debating this topic ... zero. The Catholic Church has never established doctrine on evolution vs creationism. I bid you peace .. and wish you well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken If you mean:

• since Darwin
• on the level of infallible dogma
• or on the level of universal Church

you just happen to be right.

If you mean creationism is fine enough even not in direct polemics against evolution, on levels like fidei proxima, or on levels more regional, you are totally wrong. It is up to you if you dare the debate on that one or not, but just to mention, it's like Nestorius saying to a layman (and I suppose you aren't even bishop) "you can't say it's heresy to deny Theotokos, the council of Ephesus hasn't been held yet!" You see, Nestorius was apparently in excellent standing, since patriarch of Constantinople (from 10 April 428 to August 431) and the first guy who took issue with his stance was a layman, obviously not on the basis of infallible dogma.

In the case of "lex credendi lex orandi" (and vice versa), the fact of the Roman martyrology from 1583 to 1992 or something and before that the Usuardus used in Rome since late 1400's definitely is, if not dogmatically, at least on some clear level doctrinally saying God created heaven and earth 5199 years before Christ was born. Session IV of Trent ties the exegesis at least disciplinary to consensus of Church Fathers, and you cannot say that the matter is too unimportant (to be doctrinal) if:

• they polemised against longer timelines
• it touches humanity of Adam
• goodness of God before sin
• truth of Christ (like not just intending to be truthful, but also knowing what He has to witness to) in Marc 10:6
• and good guidance of God offered to mankind from Adam to Christ, as per Dei Verbum §3, which is very Young Earth Creationist compatible.

If in face of this, you are still stuck in Deep Time a few millions of years ago, well, I bet you "have no interest in debating this topic" - with someone more knowledgeable on Creation Science and on Catholicism than the JW's you usually meet.

@TruthHasSpoken Forgot a local council in Cologne actually affirming Creationism after Darwin, just before Vatican I (which didn't repeat it, but also didn't get to finish proceedings). So, on local levels, while not infallible, you have a doctrinal statement since Darwin, in direct polemics. It would certainly have excluded Adam having evolutionary ancestry.

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Rather Hans, I have no interested in debating it .. it matters not to my Catholic Faith. Other uses of my time. Don't puff yourself up in thinking ITS YOU ... I see much pride in you (just saying)

"* on the level of infallible dogma ... or on the level of universal Church ... you just happen to be right. "

Right. Which was my point all along. Catholic's are free to disagree, and thus, I defend your right to your position. And that same Universal Church never held a doctrine on the topic, even before Darwin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken Yeah, it is obviously very proud to say one has an argument against someone else's position, when one has in advance backed that by arguing and the other has refused to do so?

And very humble to answer an argument by appeals to detecting pride rather than by argument?

"you just happen to be right"

If, and only if, you actually need a direct papal definition or ecumenic council definition specifically directed against Darwin's and Deep Time's specific errors, not just general support for YEC credenda.

"Catholic's are free to disagree,"

I haven't seen that in Paris ... and you haven't shown a specific right prior to the discussion to disagree on whether Adam's direct creation from dust, Biblical timeline, universal flood, all kinds now living from the Ark (unless fish or invertebrates).

The specific right given by Pius XII was given in a very hedged fashion, he didn't say anyone had a right to believe Adam had biological ancestry, he said people had a right to defend that in debate. You seem more interested in believing it (a right not granted in 1950 HG § 36) than in defending it (a right actually given in the hedged manner "at present the magisterium does not forbid" - very much weaker than "it is allowed" which he didn't say).