Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man)

[Published on Pentecost Day:] New blog on the kid: Can Old Earthers Still Believe Mankind Was Created 10 000 Years Ago? · Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Fr. Robinson against Young Earth Creationism? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: SSPX News (feat. Andrew and Fr. Robinson) Try to Defend Old Earth Creationism · Fr. Robinson, Part 2 · Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man) (the last one was actually for the afternoon, but here we go)

Biblical Chronology - Young Earth Creationism Pt. 3 - Questions with Father #44 - Fr. Robinson
SSPX News - English | 3 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8GgBlEEJk

I checked by disconnecting my session and viewing the video or rather the comments section below as unconnected. The channel SSPX News English has chosen to make my comments invisible. Not sure they would be visible if I connected with another account, but they are definitely doing their worst to shut my viewpoint down. As they aren't with certain other comments. I give a line by line refutation of their argument, they treat me as if I were throwing a tantrum.

"before the 0:19 scientific discoveries of the late 19th century most adherents of Catholicism and protestantism believed that the 0:25 earth and the universe were 6,000 years old based on chronology derived from the Bible 0:30 however after the discovery of the radioactive behavior of atoms developments in the study of geology and 0:37 accurate measurements of star distances Catholic Scholars abandoned the idea that the Earth was 6,000 years old 0:44 fundamentalist Protestants however clung to this idea that this was a teaching of the Bible and seek to support their 0:50 thesis by scientific evidence by which they tried to explain away these discoveries"

OK, and Luther excommunicated Pope Leo X over introducing Indulgences? In 1522, Luther added another excommunication, because Rome had recently introduced the Sacrifice of the Mass?

No, that is a totally false history, and what you said in the opening paragraph is also a totally false history.

• 1) You misconstrue the latitude of how old and young the Biblical chronology can go. Catholicism has three distinct viewpoints on the choice of texts.
  
  
  • a) Trent Session IV endorses the Vulgate, which is indeed Ussher compatible. Haydock comments on the Douay Rheims, translated from the Vulgate, footnote chapters on what year Anno Mundi and Anno Domini, based on Ussher.
  • b) The Roman Martyrology for Christmas day involves, since it was only Usuardus, not yet obliging for all of the Latin rite, a quote from Historia scholastica. 1 BC, when Christ is born, coincides with 5199 AM. Since 1490's, two modifications have been made on the quote, in the Roman Martyrology.
  • c) Nicaea II (or Constantinople IV) in some comment mentioned that Jesus was born 5500 AM. That's the Chronology of Syncellus.
  
  
  
• 2) You totally omit that "distant starlight problem" was becoming a thing way later than the shift you pretend to describe.
  
  
• 3) You paint Fundamentalist Protestants as the conservative party. On this issue, of course. They are now divided in three branches, all admitting Adam was created around 4000 BC, but divided on the Universe.
  
  
  • a) Universe at the same time as Adam (within one week, or within 168 hours). Young Earth Creationism.
  • b) Universe created way earlier, and the six days begin after a huge disaster leaving the Earth Tohu wa Bohu. Gap Theory.
  • c) Universe created way earlier, over six long periods of time. Day Age.
  
  
  These same theories were being defended by Catholic publications as late as 1896, with no latitude for less literal readings (corresponding to Framework Theory, the Liberal Protestant view), and with some more latitude for which Biblical chronology, Ussher, Syncellus, or the Martyrology in between. Fulcran Vigouroux had some latitude in principle, but never explored it in practise, for extending the timespan between Adam and Abraham, most likely if so within the Genesis 11 genealogy. BUT concretely, in 1880 or so, he stated that there was no need for it. For human history, he stuck to Biblical chronology. He gave no authorisation to depart from that position of Young Earth Creationism in 1909.
  
  Meanwhile, among Protestants of the time, nearly no one was Young Earth Creationist. They were then divided between Gap Theory and Day Age, and the exceptions were Roman Catholics and 7th Day Adventists. While the English speaking Catholic world was clearly less productive in manuals promoting Young Earth Creationism after Lyell, it had the Haydock Comment which was explicitly Young Earth Creationist. When Scofield came to imitate the concept of Haydock (consciously or not), he on the other hand promoted Old Earth Creationism.
  
  When Catechisms were written from the time of that by Pope St. Pius IX to some in the 1950's and 60's, they were clearly compatible with Young Earth Creationism. "Katolsk Troslära" is a Swedish translation from a German one of the 60's, just after Vatican II, or during it (it shows in the artwork). It was the one I used in converting for a Polish priest ordained in 1958, when I was received. It was as compatible with Young Earth Creationism as that of Pius X. The Baltimore Catechism was issued in 1885 and held to Biblical chronology from Adam to Jesus, at least, specifically somewhat too tied for my taste to the Ussher chronology.
  
  
• 4) Protestant Fundamentalists (outside 7th Day Adventists) were however not catching up on this prior to Henry Morris' and John Whitcombe's The Genesis Flood. Publication date 1961.

2:37 Careful as to whom we go to for information?

So, let me resume. Theologically speaking, in and of itself, you hold the Young Earth Creationist position to be totally hunky dory, as long as there is no scientific reason against it. For Science, you are willing to go to Lyell, Darwin, Dawkins, Bessel, Herschel, Shapley and Kapteyn of whom none (possibly excepting Kapteyn) were Catholics.

But if I go for Science to Ken Ham or Carl Wieland, oh, no, I can't go to non-Catholics, because it's after all a Theological question.

But didn't I go to them for the theological question whether Biblical chronology holds? No, I had made up my mind well before that; by reading City of God.

St. Augustine, a saint and a Church Father. Is that good enough for you for a theological question?

I smell rank hypocrisy!

2:50 You go to Protestants like Isaac Newton (probably an Arian, not just Protestant) and Bessel and Herschel for Distant Starlight Problem, and to Protestants like Hutton and Lyell for Geological Deep Time, and that's OK.

If I go to Ken Ham, also a Protestant, against Geological Deep time, and to Riccioli, actually a Catholic, to solve the Distant Starlight problem by Geocentrism, that's not OK?

The hypocrisy.

"that's not good and we should be right careful about going to Protestants 2:53 so you know the church has always considered that to be a danger to our faith to to go to the Protestants"

"La vérité et l'érudition, en effet, ne sauraient être hérétiques, au point de redouter d'utiliser ce que des érudits, même hérétiques, ont écrit et exposé avec justesse". (Dom Guarin)

This scholar of the Old Testament had utilised Hebrew lexica which had been produced by Protestant scholars.

Translating the quote, which I keep on my YEC blog, for which right now I can't find the reference, it means "truth and erudition, in fact, can't be heretical, to the point of fearing to use what learned men, even heretics, have written and exposed with aptness."

Found the guy:

"Pierre Guarin, né au Tronquay (Eure) en 1678 et mort à Saint-Germain-des-Prés le 29 décembre 1729, est un moine bénédictin de la congrégation de Saint-Maur, grammairien hébraïsant et bibliothécaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés."

"and 2:59 and also as I see I mean these these lay theologians who in many cases have not 3:04 received a proper theological training um are not the best reference either even if they're Catholic"

• 1) What Seminar or Theological faculty had given a proper training to St. Justin martyr?
  
  
• 2) Didn't the FSSPX reprint the Defense of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther, even if it was written by, less pertaining, a man who later became a Schismatic, but more pertaining, a man who was a layman, Henry VIII?
  
  
• 3) What was the Theological training of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, famous part time lay theologian, apologist, famous for The Everlasting Man and also for The Well and the Shadows? He was decorated by Pope Pius XI. (He was also, as Kennedy Hall noted, an opponent of Darwinism, and of belief in historical sciences, even further accentuated when his friend Hilaire Belloc, also decorated, in Return to the Baltic considered the Ice Age in the Baltic region ended around the Birth of Christ, based on Danish navigation not starting earlier)
  
  
• 4) It was as lay theologian that St. Thomas More concluded that the Oath of Supremacy was illicit. If you note he was supported by one bishop, St. John Fisher, I counter with one bishop Richard Williamson.

"what 3:23 what I'm I'm trying to do is is provide information about what the authentic theologians of the church have taught 3:30 and these These are priests who went through a seminary formation um they 3:35 were trained in theology at a time when the church was very Orthodox"

C. F. Keil was admittedly Lutheran.

But Johann Emanuel Veith was a Catholic priest, as well as a physician. Athanasius Bosizio was a priest and a Jesuit. Alois Trissl was certainly a Catholic, whether he was a priest or a Geologist.

For G. J. Burg, V. M. Gatti, P. Laurent, A. Saignet I do not find personal informations.

I would say the Orthodoxy was somewhat declining in the 19th C. given the non-condemnation of Settele's astronomy book or astronomy chapters in a science book in 1820. However, Geocentrism was upheld by the then chief Inquisitor, if I recall his function correctly, who was overridden, one Filippo Anfossi, and it was never condemned in that context.

3:55 As the Church did not condemn Settele, who was not Orthodox in his view of cosmology, there were degrees of heterodoxy that slipped under the radar even in the 19th C. and even more so in the 20th.

5:05 If we have a Baltimore Catechism, a Catechism of St Pius X, and some other Catechism (which I am not aware of), which specifically allows for Old Earth, in the pre-Conciliar era, none of the Catechisms trump that of Trent (YEC) or the Church Fathers (like City of God, St. Augustine, a clearly YEC book).

None of these recent catechisms is per se "the teaching of the Church" but the YEC ones are in greater continuity.

"today like you said there are a lot of lay theologians 5:51 there's a lot of guys I realize the irony of what I'm saying right now there's a lot of guys sitting there 5:56 behind a microphone lay men who are instructing the faithful and um that's 6:02 not good"

The promoters of Catholic Truth Guild (at least diocesan bishops, probably the Popes) and Pope Pius XI decorating Chesterton and Belloc did not agree on that.

You take that idea from Russian Orthodox who say "oh, a lay person who has slept with his wife shouldn't be speaking on these things, we need a monk, ideally a priestmonk, who is authorised by the Church as to his status and who is also a hesychast"

THAT idea would not have flied with Pope Pius XI who knew the author of The Everlasting Man drank beer and tried to get children with his wife.

"like I I I'm not I'm not trying to throw anyone any popular YouTube 6:08 Catholic speaker under the bus even traditional ones but if they are not operating under the guidance of a priest 6:13 or a bishop um it's not really a good idea"

I note that I am not a youtuber, but a blogger. I could be thrown under the bus by both faces on the screen, and they could have used the words they used so as not to be technically lying.

I note that Kennedy Hall and Hugh Owen, as they arguably are practising are arguably enjoying the guidance or confidence of their priests.

I also note, when I was a parishioner in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, when I regularly went to confession at least once per month, and to communion at least when I had confessed, no one there told me in so many words, 2009—2011:

• if you write, and since you are not a priest, you are at present a layman without guidance of a priest
• this is not good
• so you need to stop to write or get a priest involved.

I am not sure whether this is because they pretended to have heard through some backhanded rumour circuit that I was a monk, which I was not and did not claim to be, or whether they simply wanted me to give up, but knew they could not give me those precise words, because they are not true. Or whether they out of a purely social snobbery felt embarrassed at a homeless man writing blogs, and thought that would backfire on them if they supported me.

"you know the the the information age 6:27 that we're living in the internet age has has kind of equalized everybody with 6:32 regards to information um everybody's a journalist now everybody's a Content 6:39 producer and it kind of cancels out the the the difference between those who 6:44 have actually been trained to say what they're saying and those who have not been trained to say what they're saying"

And if that were a good thing?

Where in the sources of the faith or morals do we find any requirement of everyone who speaks up on a topic, mind you, not meaning every a) priest, who needs to know liturgy and be ordained, often enough also moral theology (those who hear confession) b) jurist who needs to know court procedure, c) doctor of medicine who needs to know general medicine and at least half the specialities at least half well, but when it comes to providing oral or written texts that everyone should need to be trained?

I do not find that. It's not there.

The closest I come is, a certain Iñigo de Loyola in Manresa was told, he was not allowed to give advice between mortal and venial sins without moral theology. He went on to become a priest and changed his name to Ignatius.

Now, I am a writer, I do not pretend to provide moral guidance to individuals asking for advice. Hence this ruling has no bearing on my function. Find another one ... or admit it doesn't exist.

I also note the formulation "trained to say what they are saying" .. like higher education teaching what to think rather than how to think ... not sure Cardinal Newman would have agreed on that one. I mean, he was the first head of the Catholic University of Dublin, as I recall.

"what I'm saying is that the 6:52 theology is is a real science and you need to be trained"

If "trained" means acquiring a specific, standardised, accredited training, I deny the requirement both for other real sciences in general and for theology in particular.

I do not mean to say a theological training from a seminary or from the Gregorianum is useless. I mean theological knowledge is possible to acquire by other venues, and it can even so be very good.

Now, I also note, there is an overreach.

We are nearly 7:00 in into the video, and all I hear is "theology, theology" but from the theological side, Young Earth Creationism is anyway known to be irreproachable.

The implication presumably is, since Tas Walker doesn't get an imprimatur, I cannot turn to him for Flood Geology, because the question is theological.

Except, of course, from the theological side, his Flood Geology adds nothing to the traditional view of a global Flood. A traditional Catholic view.

From time to time, once in a 50 or 100 articles, CMI will make a bow to the Reformers, which I will denounce or ignore. Because of that, I somehow need to ignore Tas Walker on Geology?

// Tas holds a B.Sc. (Earth Science with first class honours), a B.Eng (hons) and a doctorate in mechanical engineering, all from the University of Queensland. //

I think Tas Walker understand Geology better than Fr. Robinson.

7:21 Continue to use their knowledge. Yes, priests do that.

So do other people who have acquired knowledge and provide content.

When it comes to Catholic content providers who are YEC:

• I, a blogger, have more time with excellent exams at university than Hilaire Belloc had;
• as we mention Hilaire Belloc, a printed writer, in Return to the Baltic he makes a point which some would now call "science denial" namely that the Ice Age ended near the birth of Christ in the Baltic, based on lack of navigation prior to that time in that area (as far as it had been found back then), and he called science "guess work";
• Kennedy Hall, videast; was a teacher and is a journalist;
• Hugh Owen, videast and blogger, possibly in print, is highly educated, though I'm not sure in what;
• Robert Sungenis, blogger, videast, in print and on the big screen, has a PhD.

Now, you can complain about how none of the mentioned have credentials specifically in theology. However, error can creep in in seminars, and must have done so in some areas well prior to Vatican II, which means that a theological training may on certain issues be a handicap in theology. Some others may have a fresh look at the truths of faith and be more circumspect in general knowledge outside theology, I bet Sungenis knows Einstein better than Fr. Robinson, I'm sure I made a whole length reading of City of God and discovered to my surprise that St. Augustine was a Young Earth Creationist. I am also sure, I studied St. Thomas in a Thomasic way, not a Neo-Thomistic way, since back when a Dominican Tertiary who now celebrates Extraordinary Form was teaching me Medieval Latin and offered Summa as an extra. I know the Medieval mentality from the inside, and that is my way of having acquired, in as far as I have so, the mindset of the Church.

I have continued to use my knowledge over the time I have been debating these questions on the internet, for now 23 years and more, though the content I wrote prior to late 2008 seems mostly lost, except what I had time to copy to my blogger account.

7:54 Pius XII, his Humani Generis is highly problematic. BUT it has one advantage over Fr. Robinson. He was, in principle, for debate.

At least he worded what can be interpreted as such thoughts.

Canonically speaking, the paragraphs are all over the place.

He does NOT say "believing Adam had physical ancestors is licit," and he also does NOT say "believing Adam had physical ancestors is NOT licit."

He said "Adam having physical ancestors can right now be both defended and attacked in debate, both from Biblical and scientific viewpoints, this is right now not being forbidden" ....

Now, Biblically attacking Adam having physical ancestors is however equipollent to stating it is, because of the Bible, forbidden to believe he had such. Otherwise it is pointless to state someone is not forbidden to argue against the Evolutionist thesis from a Biblical standpoint.

Obviously, arguing Adam had no physical ancestors from a scientific standpoint, is equipollent to saying either sciences that are relevant do not forbid it, or, some do perhaps not even allow it. It can be noted, the science expertise can in this case come from non-Catholics.

Pius XII did, according to his wording, not legally intend to shut down debate of the Creationist kind.

Now, what about Young Earth Creationism? He was unfortunately an old earther, and probably had overconfidence in what purported to be good science. In order to refute eternal steady state universe, in 1951, he cited a measure that earth was 5 billion years ago, according to very accurate methods. These methods are _so_ accurate that the measure has now shrunk to 4.5 billion for exactly the same samples. But above all, he showed no proof of having himself a grasp on how the method worked. He just believed whatever the scientists said. I think people from the RATE project (all of them Protestants) know more about the science of radiometric dating than Pius XII did, and on the side of radiocarbon, not yet an issue in his time, so do I.

Fulcran Vigouroux had a very good grasp on what Biblical inspiration meant. He just failed to totally apply it, but he applied it lots more than any Old Earther does today.

His position as expressed in a manual in the late 19th C. is far closer to literalism than any Old Earther today, and the position which is part of that, which he was allowed to authorise in 1909, as judge, while not authorising the rest of his positions (non-global Flood, possible gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy), as they weren't asked about, restricts the scope for Old Earth even more. The only Old Earth Creationists I know of that strictly agree with Fulcran Vigouroux at present is The Watchtower Society.

Also, as I pointed out to Gavin Ortlund, a non-global Flood would have been too shallow for the Ark to survive the turbulence. One has, with some bad faith, compared the Ark to the schooner Wyoming. Now, the part where the comparison actually is pertinent is, it was in shallow waters, c. 9 meters deep, or back then perhaps even shallower, that Wyoming succumbed to the turbulence. Surviving a Flood as deep as the Pacific or Mid-Atlantic, no problem, but a non-global Flood, no.

The quote from Fr. Kolbe, I am not familiar with, will see on the other video, whether it was #42 or #43.

8:53 "as you know, the internet is not the most virtuous forum for discussion"

That's like saying "the US is not the most virtuous forum for discussion" or "Paris is not the most virtuous forum for discussion" ...

This is getting some fairly ugly place, I think.

Suppose I may have at some point been angry, though none of my arguments, and very little of my wording would actually show that, I have been pushed out of opportunities to get my stuff into print, and hence pushed back to the street I was trying to leave, back in 2010, by at least in important part St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. Precisely because this smudging of "the internet" as if it were a substance with a quality rather than a very disparate collection of such (apart from the technology, which does have a quality, and which you are using), people who could have looked at my blogs and concluded "this might be an idea to print", well, they were pretty actively discouraged from looking because it was on the internet I had produced the texts.

Now, the other reason, very probably, was, I was very explicitly Young Earth Creationist, though they had no official position against it, they felt queezy about it. Probably more than one had, even back then, what Fr. Robinson says openly only now, as "secret but still very official" standpoint.

This injustice has cost me teeth and may be pushing me to diabetes. I am reminded of the three young men, their spiritual director, a priest of the FSSPX, told them to get out in a boat in a storm, to train their courage. The going out had no practical value, just to train their courage. They drowned, they were buried, and that priest was then put into prison and is after prison forbidden to do pastoral. That exact degree of uppity recklessness is what I have seen in the FSSPX positions, secret and now open, as to my role as a writer, and my position which is Young Earth Creationism.

I think I will go offline right now, so as to avoid actually getting angry.

9:42 My handle is my legal name.

OK, I leave out two middle names, but I give the names I use when I sign a paper in the bank.

Anyone can trace me through my handle if he cares to, and that's how I want it.

Now, I do treat priests (some of them) with less respect when on the internet, but that's because I am not tongue tied. In "real life" my respect makes me tongue tied, I can't get through what I want.

Priests have presumed on that, and dominated me. Over the internet, I have some kind of chance. In a private letter, I often cannot document for third party what I said and what the priest answered, so, again, if the priest wants to treat me poorly, he can.

11:59 "the earth was older" (than Adam, Eve, Abel and Cain) contrary to the words of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
"man was older" — highly problematic for theological anthropology.

When a Neanderthal is dated to 300 000 years old because of Potassium and Argon in lava above it, and another one to 40 000 years old (the youngest dates of actual bones) because of Carbon 14 in the human tissue itself, there are basically two options left now:

• Earth is young, the Flood was global, the lava was cooled quickly in the waters of the Flood, which trapped excess argon, and so the argon date is inflated, the carbon 14 level at the Flood was c. what now adds up to 40 000 years ago, so, it would have been a reading of 35 000 years old or similar back then;
• or theological statements get into ruins, not always for everyone the same ones, different solutions have different drawbacks, but theology is ruined in each of the scenarios.

You can say "La Ferrassie 1 being dated to 40 000 BP and this being correct doesn't mean heresy X is true" which is true. But if you went on to motivate a scenario about La Ferrassie 1 being dated to 40 000 BP and this being correct and X not following, then probably Y (also heretical or highly erroneous) or Z (also heretical or highly erroneous) would follow instead.

13:04 "the Protestants started the Young Earth Creation movement"

No. Lyell started the Old Earth Creation movement, he was Protestant. Cuvier was also a Protestant. Protestants were getting into Old Earth before any Catholics were.

Some Protestants started the Young Earth Creation movement, in reaction against the majority of Protestants.

And this at a time when Catholics in France were more often YEC than OEC, and when English speaking Catholics were, partly due to the Haydock Bible, mostly following Ussher chronology and typically without either Gap Theory or Day Age.

Remember, the "Second Great Awakening" movements are not less Catholic, but more Catholic than their Predecessors. If we want a 16th C. precursor for what they actually did, it's St. Francis of Sales, not Beza. I mean of course in what their difference was in comparison to previous Protestants. They unfortunately remained heirs of some of the evils from the Reformation.

For instance, this type of Protestant and Luther would both target Catholicism when speaking of "Works Salvation" ... but the actual heirs to Luther and Calvin would also target them for "Works Salvation" back then, when they claimed "Lordship Salvation" ... Luther would mean, "definite righteous acts are simply not required in relation to salvation" while this type would state more like "righteous acts are a required sign of having received salvation" ... they would still, this newer type, target Catholicism, say "you make works a condition for salvation" but the practise would not differ all that much except in sacraments and in what constitutes living according to the commandments. For Luther's disciples, a soldier could be excessively cruel in dismantling a Catholic Church, against the ones opposing that move, and yet it would not yeopardise their salvation, if they only recalled that Jesus died for their sins. For the newer bunch, a Christian has actively to step away from the sinful life, if he had lived that.

So, a movement arising in the 19th C. among Protestants does not need to be a bad one. Pusey was even in many ways liturgically more Catholic than his predecessors, and his disciple John Henry Newman was a saintly Oratorian after his conversion. And a Cardinal of the Roman Church.

13:18 "whereas the Catholic response was"

Actually pretty often Young Earth Creationist.

13:27 "to say ... there is no chronology properly speaking"

Catholics certainly were aware of different versions of Biblical chronology, for instance Syncellus had a Latin translation in Paris. Father Fulcran Vigouroux was considering, from Adam on, the chronology of the LXX, presumably the version of Syncellus held. He was in principle open, shoud geology require it, to insert gaps into the Genesis 11 genealogy, but as he thought this was not yet required, he did not really explore that option. Also, that is not one of the things he had occasion to authorise as judge in 1909. Like non-global Flood also wasn't that.

14:07 "What was the attitude in 1870 of the Catholic Church"

... on Ireland. Fr. Molloy doesn't speak for Munich or Mayence or Vienna.

14:27 Note "many" and "until a recent period" ... when Fr Molloy spoke, accepting Lyell was already becoming mainstream among Anglicans.

There were from the 1830's on books by Catholics accepting in principle Lyell, and promoting either Gap Theory, what Kenneth Copeland holds to, or Day Age, what the Russellians of the Watchtower Society hold to. In the lists of authors furnished for each position by Eugène Mangenot SJ, one or possibly both of the Old Earth positions did dominate England and US.

But Catholicism in 1870 is not equal to Anglophone Catholicism in 1870, and among the Anglophones, probably pretty many ignored those writers Molley refers to and preferred George Leo Haydock, who used the literal six days (except perhaps for the stars, see the comment on Genesis 1:16, which is also open to aliens, at least in the 1859 edition, with the quote from Walker).

15:59 "either way, this doesn't conflict with my faith"

It's more than just Biblical text on chronology that it very deeply conflicts with.

One could imagine a scenario in which it wouldn't so conflict, but it would be so far removed from what Old Earth mainstream Scientists say, that it's like saying Ruckmanist Baptist continuity doesn't conflict with Matthew 28:20. Not directly, but it conflicts very directly with recorded history.

"because um we 15:32 as Catholics we know what we believe already before we pick up the Bible and 15:37 we're able to to say is this particular interpretation of the Bible is the interpretation that the Bible is not 15:43 teaching chronology with that conflict with my faith said well no it's not going to conflict with my faith so that 15:50 leaves me freedom on on this question if if the Earth Earth is millions of years old if the Earth is 6,000 years old 15:56 either way it doesn't conflict with my faith whereas a Protestant doesn't know what he believes when when he picks up the 16:02 Bible and that's why there's all these Protestant religions the tons of them 16:08 being invented because each one picks up the Bible and interprets it in a different way he doesn't have the church there to say well this is this is what 16:14 it means here's the faith let me give you the catechism this is what you have to believe if you want to be Catholic 16:19 and when you read the Bible you just make must make sure it conforms to this Faith so it's not a surprise that that 16:26 the the Catholic response was well this does not um in any way impinge upon the 16:31 faith and Catholics are free to to believe that that this science is 16:36 compelling"

This is very cavalier about the Bible. It may be pastoral advice to laymen allowed to read the Bible, but it is not how Catholic bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or mostly even laymen have been reading the Bible.

You are basically saying "the Bible is superfluous" and denying the utility of all Scripture. II Tim. 3:14--17 doesn't say the OT without Christian exegesis is sufficient, but it does say that with it, all of it is useful.

19:56 The LXX does not have Methuselah dying after the Flood in all manuscripts, and recently a Protestant scholar has shown that not only do readings of the LXX exist where Methuselah is 189 rather than 169 when begetting Lamech, but also that the scribal error is very explicable, given the notice about Henoch contains many "sixty" figures, and also he has shown that there are authors who have read a LXX or similar text, and who have read it so that Methuselah was 189 when begetting.

So, the correct reading of the LXX does not deny Methuselah died before the Flood. The Roman martyrology reading for Christmas day is done by St. Jerome, who, up to Abraham, was using the earlier calculations of Julius Africanus. Now, this man has the pre-Flood period as 2262 years, which it is if Lamech was 189 when begetting. But this unfortunately got "corrected," so the pre-Flood period in the martyrology reading is 2242 years. He also has Genesis 11 without the II Cainan., a total of 942 years between Flood and Abraham.

21:05 These four points ...

1) Relative dates can add up to an internal chronology. From a given choice of text version, you can add up the distance of Adam to Abraham, whereever you place these in time.

I have noted the minima and maxima are 1307 + 290 (Samaritan pre-Flood + Masoretic post-Flood) = 1597 years versus 2262 + 1170 (correct LXX Genesis 5 + incorrect LXX Genesis 11) = 3432 years.

But this in and of itself is enough to exclude Old Earth scenarios, in which the distance from first man to Pharaos of Egypt (one of which lusted after Sarah in Genesis 13) is way beyond 3432 years.

2) If any combination of text versions will give too short a timeline for Old Earth creationist views on the age of man, it doesn't matter for the question that text versions differ.

3 and 4) are basically the same objection.

The genealogy which pretty certainly at least according to the usual reading of Kings (Damien Mackey has an alternative one) has gaps is in Matthew. Here, 4 generations out of more than 40 are missing. This is c. 90 % coverage of actual ancestry in the textual genealogy.

This genealogy of Matthew does not use "so and so lived so and so many years and begat so and so" which is why it was not intended to calculate the time distance from Abraham to Jesus by itself. However, this is not the case with the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, which do give that information. Hence, the context, if not the meaning of Hebrew "son" or "beget", assures it is (except for the II Cainan) the actual son. My theory of the II Cainan is, if he existed (Luke 3 exists in manuscripts without him) he was omitted in Hebrew by "damnatio memoriae" and restored in Greek bc Greeks did not have this custom.

"led the 21:17 scripture manuals to say"

Are they mentioned by name in part 1?

22:02 I note, like Pius XII, Ernesto Ruffini was not prepared for what kind of extension carbon dates and argon dates would make of the human timeline, but even if he was, he was not exploring the implications for theology of such timelines.

24:18 "they have a totally different way of writing the old testament"

A way that differs significantly on some points, yes. If you go from panorama to close-up (Genesis 1 to 2) or inversely from close-up to panorama (Apocalypse 19 to 20, the thousand years started with spiritual resurrection from AD 33 on), a modern writer would signal this transition. To a Hebrew it would have arguably been noticed subliminally, no big deal to make a fuss of.

But differring significantly on some points and differring totally are not the same thing.

25:38 They obviously have some focus on how many calendar years passed, even if they didn't have calendars with year numbers.

Otherwise they wouldn't be giving numbers of years of lifespans.

Just as much as ancestry matters, longevity matters to Orientals these days. It was important that Methuselah lived 969 years. Longevity is a sign of the blessing of God.

This is about how much you project from Orientals these day back to the Bible writers.

If you simply meant "we can see the narrative isn't totally linear" — guess what, neither are narratives in history books. I had a "History of the fatherland" in Swedish and it was all the time giving a Swedish timeline, catching up in a more international one, proceeding beyond the one of Sweden, catching up with the Swedish line of events and so on. Reality is not one timeline of one person, it's multiple timelines of multiple persons. Switching from one to another is not unheard of in how we narrate things, unless you have a very limited experience of contemporary narratives, perhaps focussed on short stories narrated in first person singular.

Exotifying a person or group of such is one tactic to avoid dealing what he or they actually are saying.

26:36 Cardinal Ruffini has less authority than Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Mark 10:6 and Luke 17:50,51 contradict this position.

It's notable that he said "centuries" and not "millions of years" ... that might be a turn of the Italian rhetoric I'm not familiar with ..

28:41 I totally agree that is three different dates. 2023 and 3509 years are not the same.

He may have missed out some on different text versions within the LXX family, but overall, it's pretty correct.

Now, 2023 or 3509 years from the first man to a contemporary of a pharao, that still excludes the idea of Rahan living 20 000 years ago, or La Ferrassie having lived, as per carbon date, 40 000 years ago, if she was human (and yes, there is now compelling evidence Neanderthals were that).

29:26 When he states 5613 according to LXX, he is actually giving the LXX Genesis 11 a total of too many years.

5613	3519	3444
2094	0075	2242
3519	3444	1202

According to my rapid deduction, he's giving the LXX Genesis 11 a total of 1202 years. Part of that may be agreeing with Ussher that Abraham wasn't born immediately when his father was 70, I disagree, but even if so, that would leave perhaps 1170 years for the generations mentioned in Genesis 11, and even with the second Cainan, it's really only 1070, the English editions differring from the Greek manuscripts.

29:56 "a serious reason to believe they are not complete"

Sorry. No.

A) The single generation difference between versions of the LXX and the other versions, namely the Second Cainan, can be explained in two ways.

1) Manuscripts of the LXX took him over from Luke 3, where he is a scribal error;
2) or he really existed, was omitted as a magician (this is how he is represented in Historia Scholastica) in the Hebrew text, known only by oral tradition, and inserted by the LXX as Greek didn't have the custom of omitting evil-doers.

Either way, this is to exceptional, it doesn not constitute any reason to doubt the completeness of the two genealogies apart from him. He would make a difference of 128 or 130 years.

B) The holes in the Matthean genealogy are similar to theory 2 on II Cainan, at least as far as three of them are concerned. Either way, there is a difference between a genealogy omitting about 10 % which is what the Matthean one does, or one giving only about 10 % or 5 % or less, which is what you would need to push Adam significantly back in time.

30:41 No such necessity. Cardinal Ruffini severley underestimates the capacity of human memory to memorise long chunks of text.

This is a modern condition, in societies where paper is abundant, and little has to be confided to learning by heart.

If each of the genealogies had in reality been 4 times as long, it could have been memorised, at least if subdivided into more chunks.

So, this technical reason is a non-reason.

Aoidoi have memorised the entire Iliad and the entire Odyssey. Each song was performed sequentially, without pause, so 400 to 600 lines of hexameter had to be memorised as one unit.

31:53 Three well known kings are omitted.

The son, grandson, greatgrandson of Athaliah.

Her husband was not omitted, since he died before her heinous sins, but the three subsequent generations are.

This is a perfect parallel to omitting the second Cainan bc of sorcery, if he existed and was an "accursed generation" ... nothing like it is a parallel to pretending the 2*10 generations were really 200 or 400 generations. Which is what you need to squeeze in modern datings (which the cardinal had no access to, most of his life) between Adam and Abraham.

32:06 The omissions in Matthew are not "many" ... they are nothing like an argument for "many" gaps, but with modern carbon dates, it's not so much as Swiss cheese genealogy you want as a genealogy with more holes than cheese!

32:23 Cardinal Ruffini and I agree that the first 11 chapters are hastier than the subsequent ones. We differ as to why.

1) He argues, Moses made the choice.
2) I argue, Abraham received chapters 1 to 11 or possibly just 2 to 11 (if Moses received chapter 1 by revelation) orally. He wrote them down. Subsequent chapters were original compositions in writing, which the Beduin tribe could actually keep in their luggage pretty easily. So, I argue, it's due to the peripeties of transmission.

The latter not being such, since human memory is not such, that longer genealogical lists could not have been memorised and transmitted.

33:04 What exact type of leeway do you want?

From Adam to Jesus, with consecutive generations, as they have always been held to actually be, with the possible exception of a second Cainan between Arphaxad and Saleh, a leeway of 3500 to 5600 years.

Without the consecutive succession of generations, how many years do you want?

Note, all of the leeway has to be placed in the first 1500 to 3600 years.

In order to make them 36 000 years, making for 38 000 years BC or 40 000 years BP, you basically need sth like only one generation in every ten being actually noted. That's a fairly stark, even ridiculous claim. Especially as the lifespans at birth of son not only give the impression of inviting to a chronology, but the invitation has often been taken, as ealy as by Julius Africanus.

To the credit of cardinal Ruffini, he wrote these fairly alienating comments, as they are now in face of carbon dates, at a time when there were no carbon dates for early human skeleta. He may have meant sth like extending the genealogies to perhaps just the double time, like 6000 years.

If he did, he would have been in agreement with Protestant Young Earth Creationists back then.

In the time of Edgar Andrews, a Young Earth Creationist was one who refused Gap Theory and Day Age Theory, starting the universe within hours from Adam. And typically, they did, even among Protestant Fundamentalists, agree on extending the age of mankind to starting up to 10 000 years ago.

It is actually around the year 2000 and after Internet arose, that Protestant Fundamentalists, and usually not the most Anti-Catholic, not the least Catholic ones, have started taking the "gapless genealogies" approach. That's after the Palmarian Catechism did so. I'm not defending the revelations of Palmar de Troya, but their theological reception did involve an inerrantist approach to the Biblical chronology, more precisely in Vulgate format.

"it's um a number that's chosen to assist with 34:15 remembering these genealogical tables you know I don't remember at what 34:21 point um I think it might have been the early 1900s the the uh literature critics were were studying The Odyssey 34:29 and someone was able to pick out he's like look wait a second um there are certain repetition of phrases in The 34:37 Odyssey that seem to be certain handles for for an oral poet to 34:45 grab on to soort memorization cues to to grab on to uh the description of the sea 34:51 or the description of Athena you know and so this was this was certain evidence that the Odyssey was an a poem 34:59 that was delivered orally before it was written down"

I do remember the study. Milman Parry studied a parallel among Balkan singers of epic poetry, specifically Serbian ones, memorising the battle of Kosovo Polje. He considered this shed quite some light on the Classical epics.

The length of the things that actually can be remembered, even as a unit (each of the 24 songs of each of the Iliad and Odyssey was ultimately memorised as a unit), makes total mayhem of the argument you propose. The Iliad is 15 693 lines long, that's an average of 654 per song. The Odyssey is 12 109 lines long, an average of 505 lines per song, I think the longest one is 800 lines plus long. The formula "X lived n years and begot Y, after he begot Y, his days were m years, [and all of his days were l years]" is quite sufficient to make long genealogies possible to remember, precisely in the way that Homeric formulas did, so, the fact that "10 is easy to remember" is not really adding all that much to the memorisation process of an oral performer.

35:13 You claim writing came later.

That's a common thesis.

Now, Adam would have been able to invent writing.

The question is, did he?

He would definitely have been expert at giving indications on how to memorise. And one way to memorise is ... initials.

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam.

I memorised that short psalm by writing down initials, E for AE, so NDED IVLQEE. Or was the line about "civitatem" first? NDCC FVQCE ...

So, it is arguable that even priorising memorisation, Adam would have invented writing as an ease for memorisation at an early stage.

Now very late, a certain Genevieve von Petzinger, not even a believing Christian, and definitely an Evolutionist, has found in the cave arts over the globe, or over the Old World, from Indonesia to Spain, 32 symbols that are not simply depictions. Hebrew alphabet plus vowels? Or, plus numerals?

I don't know. But the dates are, carbon wise, 40 000 to 10 000 BP, the oldest one being the hashtag. So if Adam did invent writing, we have arguably found a trace of it. Writing certainly existed prior to the Iliad and Odyssey, it's just that this being the speciality of tax collectors, the Iliad in a flashback on Bellerophon speaks of "semata lugra" ...

35:24 way, way after

Here is the comment by Fr. George Leo Haydock, using the Masoretic / Ussher chronology:

[Genesis 3:24] Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

Using a LXX chronology, I see the minimal overlaps a bit differently, but as I consider Abraham started to commit parts of Genesis to writing, starting with what he had learned of the first 11 chapters (including or minus the six day account), it is still very little room for distortion as per my minimal overlaps either:

Adam — Mahalaleel
Mahalaleel — Noah
Noah — Shem
Shem — Eber
Eber — Serug
Serug — Abraham

38:35 By now there is better evidence.

1) There are carbon dates. A carbon date of 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC can be seen as a few different things.

a) 40 000 years ago, there lived these people, the atmosphere had 100 pmC and that's why we find 0.792 pmC now.
b) A bit before the Flood, in c. 3000 BC or c. 5000 years ago, there lived these people, the atmosphere gave an instant age of 35 000 years, so it was as low as 1.45 pmC, and since that has decayed for 5000 years, we now have ... 1.45 * 54.616 / 100 = 0.791932 pmC now.
c) A bit after Babel, 4200 years ago (Ussher view), the people so dated lived with, for some reason the carbon 14 level requisite for an instant age of 35800 years, and that means 1.316 pmC. Since 4200 years lapsed since then, we get the multiplication 1.316 * 60.166 / 100 = 0.79178456 pmC.

Note, uniformitarians (not meaning people who believed in uniform laws of nature, but rather uniform atmospheric levels of c. 100 pmC) will also say that the samples had 1.45 pmC 5000 years ago and 1.316 pmC 4200 years ago. They differ from YEC on whether either could be the original pmC, stating "no, the original pmC was c. 100" ...

2) Some of the creatures dated to 40 000 years ago are not Homo sapiens. However, thanks to Svante Pääbo, we know their genes are in parts of today's human populations. Both Neanderthals and Denisovans. For each we also have evidence of human behaviour that may have not yet been available to Cardinal Ruffini when he wrote. So, we can say for certain they descend from Adam.

3) So, accepting carbon dates as they are would push mankind back 40 000 years. Not accepting carbon dates as they are requires a rise in carbon levels in the atmosphere. Going from zero to c. 100 pmC would with today's production rates for carbon 14 take 30 000 years. In order to get it reasonably close to at most 10 000 years, ideally 6 or 7000 years ago, one would need to have had in the past a higher production of carbon 14.

4) As the production of carbon 14 is not a per se constant, but a resultant, this is feasible, rejecting uniformity of levels and production rates, while keeping uniformity of laws of nature.

With these people just before the Flood in 2957 BC, as I hold Neanderthals should be placed, the rise from just over 1 / under 2 pmC at the Flood to c. 100 pmC at the fall of Troy would take a production rate of medium 5 times as fast, my tables actually vary this from at times between Flood and Babel 20 times as fast, and to down to just three times as fast from fall of Jericho to fall of Troy or if that was even birth of Moses to fall of Jericho (I have archaeology line-ups with the Bible, and these carbon dated for each), this would at first have been a factor in producing the Ice Age and in producing the drop of lifespans, as recorded over Genesis 11.

Hence, item b) for how to interpret these carbon dates definitely is my pick.

39:07 He could not in 1959, when he wrote the book, have been well researched in carbon dates. Citing wiki:

"Libby and James Arnold proceeded to test the radiocarbon dating theory by analyzing samples with known ages. For example, two samples taken from the tombs of two Egyptian kings, Zoser and Sneferu, independently dated to 2625 BC plus or minus 75 years, were dated by radiocarbon measurement to an average of 2800 BC plus or minus 250 years. These results were published in Science in December 1949. Within 11 years of their announcement, more than 20 radiocarbon dating laboratories had been set up worldwide."

Presumably, by 1960, such that would tend to confirm the method by comparison with for instance Egyptological material.

Not yet using it confidently to date Neanderthals.

39:51 Yes, I heard 1933 right. Here is what Wiki says in Augustine Bea, section Bibliography:

De Pentateucho Institutiones Biblicae Scholis Accomodatae, Romae, 1933

This was before even the idea of carbon dating. So, this was back when accepting old earth and old humanity might mean simply pushing Adam only as far back as 10 000 years ago.

Precisely as Edgar Andrews did. A man who back in From Nothing to Nature leaned towards Young Earth Creationism and is now an Old Earth Creationist. That would take some gaps in the genealogies, but would potentially not be fatal to a faithful transmission from the Genesis 3 event to Moses.

If one accepts 40 000 years, I think that would be fatal.

a) Trojan War was two periods of together c. 700 years before the sons of Peisistratos put it into writing, Homer being the division and coming about halfway. Note, while I defend Homeric truth, I think Homer did some distortion too. According to Walter Leaf, all about Achilles and Hector, indeed all about Hector, was added for human interest. At least an option.
b) Homer to sons of Peisistratos, if not in years, at least in generational overlaps, is comparable to Haydock's Adam to Moses or my Adam to Abraham.
c) Kosovo Polje to 1928 when Milman Parry wrote is 639 years. That's somewhat longer than Homer to sons of Peisistratos, but not twice.

So, a faithful transmission purely orally of 40 000 years, I think is out of question.

It's not just a question of learning by heart, but language and concepts would change a lot in that amount of time, and that would imply distortions that accumulate. For a faithful transmission of Genesis 3, stick with Young Earth. And that chapter is so important, like both Original Sin and Mary's sinlessness.

§§ Hagen 1904, according to my Latin knowledge:

• he's saying that old rediscovered history makes 4000 years from Adam to Christ too short
• that assuming it longer (i e than 4000 years) is not against the Bible.

Simply taking a LXX chronology would suffice for that.

I think he was also overestimating the veracity of Egyptian and Sumerian chronicles.

Narmer would on Egyptian sources be dated c. 3000 BC or a little earlier, I'd say that's probably the pharao Abraham met. About 1000 + years more recently.

Libby dated Zoser or Djoser to 2800 BC, Egyptian sources date him to 2625 (2750 to 2500), I'd say he was Joseph's pharao, and died c. 1700 BC.

Both Egyptians and Sumerians had a doctrine of the unity of the territory. Rival dynasties in rival places would after they were both gone get recorded as one coming before another in a unified Egypt or a unified Shumerum and Akkadum. That unity being fiction in service of ideology.

He's obviously very far from stating anything in favour of taking Adam as before 40 000 years ago.

41:26 I would say "monuments" gives an architectural and statuary connotation in English, while the Latin "monumentum" has a connotation also spanning literature.

He's probably referring to Egyptians giving such and such regnal dates (relative ones, mind you!) in things like the Karnak Kings List, that it adds up to Egypt starting 3000 + BC.

41:52 When it comes to Vigouroux, I'd say, the one idea of his that actually does get approved (by his own pen) in the Pontifical Biblical Commission is pure Day-Age, no extensions of Genesis 5 or 11.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

In an article on Biblical chronology it is hardly necessary in these days to discuss the date of the Creation. At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point. But it does nothing of the sort.

Well, the 200 attempts show a persistence of the doctrine, if not dogma, that generations in Genesis 5 and 11 are consecutive.

A bit later we find:

In fact, M. Guibert is of opinion that with our present knowledge there is nothing compelling us to extend the existence of man beyond 10,000 years.

That makes M. Guibert, at least with respect to human existence, a Young Earth Creationist. Not strictly Biblical, but Young Earth with some latitude. The longer estimates on Biblical timelines put Abraham c. 3000 years and more after Adam, but 10 000 BP = 8000 BC = 6000 before Abraham, it simply doubles the amount of time. No more than that.

42:15 Silvestre de Sacy [cited by Vigouroux] seems to have been a Jansenist.

44:02 Quoting the article:

The literal interpretation has now been entirely abandoned; and the world is admitted to be of immense antiquity.

That was arguably the case in France and the English world, especially with a focus on the learned, but this was not universal.

44:17 Thank you very much for showcasing the authors' list. Two works are by Archibald Sayce. A man known precisely for the idea genealogies weren't meant to be taken literally:

SAYCE, Early History of the Hebrews (London, 1897); SAYCE, Higher Criticism and the Monuments (London, 1894);

1) He wrote before the work of Milman Parry.
2) He based it on regnal genealogies (I think we could see them as a hybrid between king lists and genealogies, imagine stating Lewis XIV had a "son" named Lewis XV and the latter a "son" named Lewis XVI (they are in fact great-grandson and grandson, respectively), and these genealogies are those of pagan nations. Applying this to Biblical non-royalty is in my view reckless.
3) As you go around warning people against taking your view of the Bible from Ken Ham (even if he agrees perfectly with Fr. Haydock on genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11), because he's a Protestant and not a Catholic, Archibald Henry Sayce was a non-Catholic non-priest:

"In 1869, Sayce was appointed a lecturer at Queen's College. He was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1870. Ongoing problems with his sight almost led to the end of his Oxford career and Sayce spent much of his time travelling Europe. It was only from 1874, when he came under the supervision of ophthalmologist Richard Liebreich, that Sayce was able to continue his academic career. In the same year he was appointed as the university's representative in the Old Testament Revision Company. Sayce also began to deliver lectures to the Nineveh Society of Biblical Archaeology and contributed to The Times and the New York Independent. In 1876 Sayce was appointed the Deputy Professor of Comparative Philology, a role shared with the continuing Professor, Max Müller, who wanted to reduce his duties."

He collaborated to a Bible revision which had no imprimatur or imprimi potest.

If you call out Catholics for agreeing with Ken Ham, that's truly "the pot calling the kettle black" ... or worse. By the way, if you are going to cite Fr. Rudolph Bandas, he's also one of those citing Archibald Sayce.

I checked the works mentioned as cited, and yes, they are on the same wiki article.

"the 44:22 pre-Vatican II consensus, giving the prev Vatican 2 consensus of perfectly Orthodox Catholic exegetes on 44:31 on these questions um pretty much unanimous that"

You mean pre-Vatican II within the American episcopates?

"the the Bible is not 44:37 teaching a chronology and the that that belief from 44:42 before that maybe there was actual dating going on there that the Bible was providing this information um this idea 44:48 was was abandoned"

The "belief from before ... was abandoned" ... sounds like what Modernism usually does.

"this this is not modernism this this is this is 44:54 just simply um proper Catholic interpretation of45:00 scripture"

And Fiducia Supplicans is just proper Catholic pastoral?

"if they if 46:11 they found this science compelling and they did not find it as an attack on the 46:17 faith is as some way to undermine religion um then we shouldn't look at it 46:23 as um a threat to to our Catholic faith"

You are reifying "this science" as if it were the same thing back in their days as today. No, it has changed since.

Both positions leading to pretending Deep Time is proven and positions not very damageable to the faith have changed. As to the former, people are capable of relying on old conclusions even if the evidence has changed.

I've already mentioned how threats to the faith in the so-called science has accumulated, let's change gears and see about proofs of Deep Time.

A) "Pyrenees are much older than Alps, but even Pyrenees are too high for World Wide Flood" — this idea that the Pyrenees had once looked at steep as the Alps, but then flattened down due to vastly superior amounts of erosion no longer has the same compelling force, at least Creation Scientists would say the Pyrenees simply rose in a somewhat different way.
B) "Older faunas are buried under newer faunas" — with today's possibilities to verify things by the internet, I have personally been able to prove this only holds for marine biota. Land biota are found one "layer" at any given place.
C) "Distant Starlight" — as unlike the heirs of the Enlightenment who were mostly around in 1820, I enjoy the mental freedom to agree with St. Thomas Aquinas, I see no proof positive for Heliocentrism, therefore not for α Centauri being 4 light years away, therefore not for certain other stars being 13 billion light years away either.

"whatever they can really 46:59 demonstrate to be true of physical nature we must show to be capable of 47:05 reconciliation with our scriptures and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these scriptures of 47:11 ours that is to the Catholic faith we must either prove it as well as 47:17 we can to be entirely false so if it if it contradicts the 47:23 faith"

St. Augustine found Deep Time totally incompatible with the faith.

See City of God.

He specifically argues against Egyptian and similar paganisms (I think he ignored the Sumerian one, but the same arguments apply) that extend the timeline by lots of tens or hundreds of thousands of years beyond the Biblical timeline.

But moreoever, he used some key words which don't apply to Uniformitarian science as it pretends to argue Deep Time. Let me explain what Uniformitarian means. It is not "laws of nature were the same before" that I object to, but "processes had the same intensity before" ... the intensity of a process does not always result directly from one law of nature, so it could only vary if the laws of nature varied. When it results from some interplay or otherwise contingent factor, that factor can very well have been different.

If you saw la Seine year after year, you might think it would never reach the Suave at the Pont de l'Alma ... but it did (even in recent years).

Again, the speed with which layers of sediment were laid down is not "their physical nature" since we know speeds vary. And recently Guy Berthaud has demonstrated that in ultrasaturated solutions, precipitation and instant layering may be very rapid.

48:17 "While the Protestants" (meaning not all, not even a majority, not even a pretty large minority, but the Young Earth Creationist minority) "do."

Perhaps because they have actually investigated Lyell a bit more?

Lyell’s aim in this 3-volume work (1830–33), was to “free the science from Moses”,(7) i.e. to free geology from the time-frame of Genesis, and hence delete the Bible’s early history. This is what he confided in a letter to his friend, geologist and fellow naturalist George Poulett Scrope, who was about to write a review of Vol. I of Lyell’s Principles of Geology for the Quarterly Review:

“I am sure you may get into Q. R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses … . I conceived the idea five or six years ago, that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down [i.e. repudiated—Ed.] without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine … .”(8)

Footnotes (7) Catchpoole, D., and Walker, T., Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda—to free science “from Moses”. creation.com/lyell, 19 August 2009.
and (8) Letter of Charles Lyell to George Poulett Scrope, June 14, 1830, Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Edited by his Sister-in-law, Mrs Lyell, John Murray, 1881, Vol. I, pp. 268–71.

The article is
Charles Lyell: the man who tried to rewrite history
by Russell Grigg | This article is from
Creation 36(4):36–39, October 2014
https://creation.com/charles-lyell

While Russell Grigg was (he died in January) very pro-Reformation, much more than some of the younger bunch at CMI, I think he was capable of giving a correct citation from Lyell, and some accurate assessment on him.

49:01 Would you mind trying to dig up what that Protestant Pastor was?

And why was the SSPX closer to finding a Protestant Pastor than a Creation Scientist?

51:12 I disagree.

I disagree that a scientist has to be unbiassed in order to do objectively correct research.

a) one may surprise oneself and one's bias once one does research
b) and the objective correctness of research is better served by free debate than by each scientist doing a preliminary exercise of eliminating biasses.

Such exercises would be very likely to prove illusory, or self defeating, especially illusory in Evolution believers (as I think Fr. Robinson will agree) and perhaps especially self-defeating in those who sincerely live up to this "removal of bias" ...

"because if 51:14 if we go into the saying the Bible must teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old 51:20 then we're not going to be able to evaluate that scientific evidence objectively"

First of all, bias and passion are not always proportional.

Second, Young Earth Creationism actually is not tied to 6000 years, I believe the Roman Martyrology for Christmas day (though it should be extended by 20 years, as the pre-Flood period was 2262 and not 2242 years long).

Third, much as I value your conclusion against Mutations and Natural Selection producing actual new structures of information, new cell types with new tissue types, made from more than one new gene, and each of them hundreds of loci away from pure chaos, that won't happen, even with billions of years, the research is a topic that's independent of the age of the earth question.

I came to the same conclusion even without first eliminating Young Earth, so it's false this has to be eliminated first.

52:14 Not just the continental drift, but also the rising of Mount Everest is still happening today.

My calculation allows for the rising of the Himalayas to have slowed down, so why not the continental drift?

I mean slowed down and initially have been quick enough for things to be the distance or height they are today, obviously.

The distance from Recife to Yaoundé is 5 311 km. The present speed of continental drift is 4 cm/year.

The Flood was 5000 years ago. Let's say things have slowed down extremely evenly.

Medium speed would be c. 1 km per year, divided between two different tectonics.

Since 4 cm is basically like nil compared to that, the initial speed would have been 2 km per year. That's just 5.48 m per day. Pretty fast, though, so, let's suppose it was even faster than that during parts of the Flood, there was a headstart of 1000 km separation just during the Flood.

Leaves 4000 km in 5000 years. 800 meters per year, initial speed 1.6 km per year, 4.38 m per day. Now, the oldest Paleo-Indian site in South America is ...

Monte Verde is a Paleolithic archaeological site in the Llanquihue Province[1] in southern Chile, located near Puerto Montt, Los Lagos Region. It contains two separate layers, the younger Monte Verde II, dating to 14,500 cal BP, and an older, much more controversial layer (Monte Verde I) suggested to date to 18,500 cal BP (16,500 BC).

To find out what that really was, I suggest consulting my tables and doing some math:

2712 BC
17.576 pmC, so dated 17062 BC

2686 BC
24.062 pmC, so dated 14486 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2686) / 5 = 2707 BC
(17.576 + 17.576 + 17.576 + 17.576 + 24.062) / 5 = 18.8732 pmC
2707 + 13 800 = 16 507 BC (QEI)

Carbon dated 16 500 BC = 2707 BC. 2957 - 2707 = 250 years.

So, if the movement initially made South America inhabitable for 250 years, that's not a problem. Let's say that at 200 after the Flood, the width had attained 0.618 * 5311 km = 3282 km.

This leaves the time after Monte Verde at 5311 - 3282 = 2029 km.

2707 + 2024 = 4731 years.

2029 km / 4731 years = 429 m / year = 1.175 m / day, initial speed 2.351 m / day.

Then the initial 250 years had to be 3282 km / 250 years = 13 128 m / year = 36 m per day in medium, ending in 2.351 m per day.

36 - 2.351 = 33.649 m/day
36 + 33.649 = 69.649 m/day initially, just after the Flood.

Would 2.351 m/day be detrimental to the habitation of Monte Verde?

2351 mm / 24 = 98 mm / h
98 mm / 60 = 1.633 / min
1.633 / 60 = 0.027 mm / sec

While one might argue, South America is a big chunk to move that fast, if there was one tectonic plate, moving over the magma, this would perhaps be doable without too much earthquakes, plus we don't know that Monte Verde wasn't abandoned for that reason.

52:21 "those numbers do not point to 6000 years either"

Well, do you suppose the continental drift is a law of nature with an exact speed?

No. If it started out very fast, it would still have been slowing down ever since, and therefore have reached 4 cm / year by now.

53:03 I have no doubt that Rockies formed by collision of two plates under or after the Flood.

Let's suppose they were set in motion against each other at the Flood, like the Himalayas.

In "Himalayas, quater" I took the speed of rising mountains as ...

51.8555 meters per year * 100 years = 5 185.55 meters (about φ times present height). The initial speed of rise would, just after the Flood, have been 290.425 meters per year.

Unless the very unfamiliar subject made me go very awry on the calculations.

53:22 If my view is correct, in the early post-Flood era, earthquakes and volcanic activity would have made anywhere near the Rocky Mountains a very hazardous place.

Now, the nearest place to them among Paleo-Indian sites is Cooper's Ferry, which is 341 miles West of the Rockies, most other places being East of them. And even further away.

That's dated to 15,700 years ago, 13 700 BC = ?

2686 BC
24.062 pmC, so dated 14486 BC

2659 BC
30.528 pmC, so dated 12459 BC

(2686 + 2686 + 2659) / 3 = 2677 BC
24.062 + 24.062 + 30.528) / 3 = 26.2173 pmC
2677 + 11 050 = 13 727 BC (close enough)

2957 - 2677 = 280

So, 280 years after the Flood, you have people settling 341 miles or 548.8 km West of the Rockies, still not on them.

This argues inhabitability, right?

While Ötzi, who died some time after Genesis 14, in 1845 BC, carbon dated 3245 BC, found the Alps sufficiently habitable to at least dare to climb up into them.

2957 - 1845 = 1112 years after the Flood.

"and we know that that 53:41 this could not have happen over a period of just 6,000 years it takes a long time 53:46 it's a very slow process by by which these these continent these plates actually move but the fact is we can 53:53 observe the plates today in real time we can observe their Movement we can feel the effects of their movement with with 54:00 the earthquakes and the tsunamis and and all that and the disasters that that they cause"

So, after the Flood, the process was much faster, and key areas were much less inhabitable than now. Himalayas, no habitations or human remains for 500 years, Rockies, dito, Alps, I think the first man found in them is Ötzi, more than 1000 years after the Flood, and I think similar observations could be made for the rest of the high mountains that rose after the Flood.

Le Mas d’Azil is in the Pyrenees, but only at a present elevation of 275–580 m (902–1,903 ft)

Cova Gran, Lleida, is 155 m (509 ft) above sea level, and it seems the habitation was pre-Flood.

This would be earlier [post-Flood] and higher:

Two main sites indicate human presence in the central zone of the Pyrenees during the late Pleistocene (Fig. 4.1). Both are situated in valleys. The first of these is in the open air, on a ridge in the Segre valley, in the town of Montlleó (Cerdanya) at 1140 m a.s.l. Archaeological excavations have identified two hunter-gatherer occupation phases dated between 18,360 and 16,700 cal BC (Mangado et al. 2005, 2009).

The Beginning of High Mountain Occupations in the Pyrenees. Human Settlements and Mobility from 18,000 cal BC to 2000 cal BC
First Online: 05 August 2017
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-55982-7_4

16,360 BC would be 2712 BC / 2686 BC, not doing the calculation again.

Roc de les Orenetes is Copper Age / Bronze Age, like Ötzi close to Abraham's times.

Vallée de l'Escou, Bronze Age.

Labastide has an elevation of 532–800 m (1,745–2,625 ft, avg. 540 m or 1,770 ft) and we deal with a younger carbon date than Segre valley.

Plus it arguably served as only ceremonial visit place, it's a place with cave paintings.

The Forat de l'Embut cave, located at an altitude of 2,235 meters, is the highest prehistoric cave with signs of human occupation discovered in the Pyrenees to date.

But, 5500 years ago carbon dated = times of Genesis 14.

Gargas cave, of Fr. Breuil fame, is near Aventignan, also a low elevation. 2884~2860 BC ....

"the discovery of evidence of a of a huge 54:25 meteorite that that struck the Earth some some time in the distant past where 54:31 in the Yucatan Peninsula there's there's this massive crator that that is is kind of hidden but but it it created this 54:38 this sort of trench they can see to this day and they know that it must have been a meteorite because the meteorites have 54:46 this element called Iridium this it's very rare on the earth and if we have Iridium"

Uniformitarians pretend this Iridium layer was at the K-T extinction event, and distinct from another one from the P-T extinction event ("Kretaceous"-Tertiary vs Permian-Triassic).

I would hold, the Iridium layers we find are from the Flood, the Yucatán peninsula was struck during the Flood, the various classification between K-T and P-T depend on fossils in the "surrounding" layers. There is one place on earth where the K-T Iridium layer has fossils both above and below, that's Yacoraite, and the fossils below and above it are identical, they are sweetwater slugs.

56:01 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened

A meteorite, like a volcano eruption, could well be instrumental in opening up those fountains of the great deep, which in 8:2 of the same book we find closed, and probably depleted.

"much older than 6000 years ago"

Based on what?

"had to be catastrophic"

Like the Flood.

57:24 Between Himalayas rising over 70 million years and God creating the Himalayas like on Creation day but after the Flood, there datur tertium.

They were started by processes moving much faster in the Flood, and this was part of how God drained off the Flood waters. The processes have since then slowed down.

Even Uniformitarians admit a slowing down:

During the Upper Cretaceous, about 70 million years ago, the north-moving Indo-Australian Plate (which has subsequently broken into the Indian Plate and the Australian Plate[20]) was moving at about 15 cm (5.9 in) per year.

Confer:

Today, the Indian plate continues to be driven horizontally at the Tibetan Plateau, which forces the plateau to continue to move upwards.[22] The Indian plate is still moving at 67 mm (2.6 in) per year, and over the next 10 million years, it will travel about 1,500 km (930 mi) into Asia. About 20 mm per year of the India-Asia convergence is absorbed by thrusting along the Himalaya southern front. This leads to the Himalayas rising by about 5 mm per year, making them geologically active.

I obviously consider the slowing down is more important than that, but still.

[Two quotes from
Wiki: Himalayas: Geology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas#Geology]

57:43 Father Molloy is under the impression that those mountains had long ago ceased rising and were crumbling down, eroding.

Or rather, he was, when he wrote this.

It's like the ideology I have mentioned in which Pyrenees are older than the Alps, because they are more worn down. Either way, he's giving a false alternative.

59:02 Young earth creationists agree with his sentiment, if they are anything like into Creation Science.

The luxuriant vegetation was pre-Flood, the dinosaurs we find were typically pre-Flood.

59:32 The lithic layers can be seen all around the world. In marine environments, a selection of different fossil layers as well.

B U T in land fauna, we do not find superposed layers around the world.

Fr. Molloy gives a shortcut to what the geologists had actually discovered, the same shortcut that is found in text books, and on which even Kent Hovind knows what to say:

The Geological Column is only found in the text-books.

If you don't mind, I'll link to sth along these lines from Ark Encounter:

Why Haven’t We Found Dinosaur and Human Fossils Together?
Ark Encounter | 10 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLkyi4Bu638

1:01:26 The craters of Pluto could obviously come from the time of the Flood.

"we cannot conceive how massive it is just like one single Lightyear is like 10 1:02:45 trillion kilometers or 10 you know with with 12 zeros Bes one a one with with 12 1:02:51 zeros beside it 10 trillion kilometers and the closest stars like maybe four Alpha 1:02:58 centari maybe four Lighty years that's the closest star so um and to think that 1:03:03 our Milky Way galaxies 100,000 Lighty years across and then that there's billions of galaxies"

In fact, all of those values are moot, as they all directly (for Alpha Centauri) or indirectly (for 100 000 light years across) depend on Heliocentrism.

"what the astronomers have done is is they have built a what's 1:03:45 called a distance ladder"

Yes, and if one very basic rung of that distance ladder is moot, like the distances "found" by parallax, then everything beyond it is moot as well.

That's why Geocentrism truly fixes this problem.

"but anyway how how do 1:05:08 astronomers know how far these galaxies are away they they construct a distance 1:05:15 ladder the first step is something called Parallax so the the Earth 1:05:21 rotating around the Sun every year"

Thank you. Exactly how all of the distance ladder depends on Heliocentrism.

"the older 1:04:07 stars are only burning hydrogen and helium whereas the newer stars are 1:04:13 burning heavier elements you can tell what elements are burning in each star 1:04:20 because there's uh you pass the light through a prism or a filter 1:04:26 and you can see these defraction lines and certain lines are blacked out and 1:04:32 and where they are blacked out lets you know what elements are burning in those Stars"

I think you actually confuse the doctrine you have learned.

The younger stars are supposed to still have Hydrogen and Helium to go, while the older are supposed to have switched to heavier elements.

This idea of where the elements come from (fusion in stars) by the way lacks explanations for elements even as heavy as iron. Or possibly somewhat heavier, I think I did see a limit somewhere there. No stars while burning are fusing Uranium into being. I think I saw a page explaining it as they form when stars with heavy elements explode, so when lumps of heavy elements are exploded against each other, even heavier ones are supposed to sometimes form.

I find it at least as believable God created all elements in the Creation week 7250 years ago.

(2024 + 5199 + 20 = 7243, 20 is for correcting 2242 into 2262 for pre-Flood era)

"sorry the the younger 1:04:55 Galaxies have the heavier elements and the older galaxies do not have the heavier elements"

You are confused about what science you were taught.

The older stars are supposed to have them, because they have had time to form, while the younger stars would still be at the stage of hydrogen / helium.

"is it not possible that God has1:13:36 created these billions of stars these thousands hundreds of light years away 1:13:41 and also made them in such a way that the light is reaching us now currently 1:13:47 um could he have not done that yeah where where he creates the star and he creates the beam of light to the Earth 1:13:54 at the same time"

That's about how I used to think of it up to becoming Geocentric.

And no, I also don't agree with God giving the spectacle of a Supernova occurring 10 000 years ago from a star that never existed, since the universe is only 7250 years old ...

But if the cosmic distance ladder is wrong, and the supernova is only 1 light day up, that takes care of that theological problem.

Some have argued my view of the angels dancing the "parallax" phenomenon into existence would introduce it in another way. I disagree. They would primarily be doing their dance to glorify God, but the knowledge that some astronomers could be deceived by this would not deter them or God, since first, they wouldn't have seen the "parallax" without a telescope and second, they wouldn't have excluded angelic movers without a highly prolonged drift into the false philosophy of materialism. So, the deception is really what these guys are asking for, it's probably part of the "strong delusion" of the end times.

1:14:19 The universe does not appear old, except if you add "secundum quid" namely according to the circumstance of to some people who are already deluding themselves before the observations, not by conspiracies as much as by incompetence.

"we 1:15:17 simply cannot infer from what we observe that the universe is is any certain age 1:15:23 we we effectively stop doing science"

Science and reason do not have the age of the univers as their primary of ultimate object.

Not being able to infer them other than from a history, like that in the Bible, is most definitely NOT stopping to do science.

Car engines will still burn petrol, probably even if it's outlawed, and light beams will still go straight, unless bent by gravitational lensing.

1:15:59 From strawman to strawman.

a) you attribute the Omphalus deception to Young Earth Creationists
b) you now attribute nominalism and "illogical God" to them.

Here is what CMI had to state:

Therefore, whether logic is an idea in God's mind, or is just an abstraction about reality that itself is not a metaphysically real object, there is no reason to think that logic somehow precedes God, or is independent of Him. God is the perfectly logical sole ultimate reality from which all other reality derives its existence.

Published: 29 January 2016, feedback answered by CMI’s Shaun Doyle.
https://creation.com/god-and-logic

"God shows us that reason is not trustworthy by creating 1:17:54 the appearances for instance of heliocentrism but um telling us in the Bible that it's not true"

There are no appearances of Heliocentrism. There are appearances that have been misconstrued as proving Heliocentrism, while only compatible with it, but the appearances are for Geocentrism.

It is actually the Heliocentrics which give scientists the kind of position that on your view Luther gave to the Bible. Trusting an authority without understanding the proofs, because that authority is sacred, not even better informed, just sacred.

"obviously the the young Earth creationist will try to save both but but what I'm saying is very very 1:18:23 dangerous for us ever to to say that that God 1:18:28 created the appearances of something but the reality is not there"

One one item we are obliged to it. Transubstantiation.

Obviously, the reason is "nil hoc veritatis verbo verius" ... let's recall the rest of the Bible is also the words of the Word.

But mainly, Young Earth Creationism is not saying it, you are attacking either a strawman, or what is just a faction among Young Earth Creationists, one not represented either by myself or the Big Three (IRC, AiG, CMI).

1:19:42 No, actually the Catholic Church is not saying God did not tell us that.

The Catholic Church has long tolerated this opinion, but the price has kept becoming greater for those who are informed about the science.

"on the 1:20:21 other hand it's not part of our faith to believe the Earth is a certain age"

Is liturgy part of our faith? Is lex orandi lex credendi?

Do you recite these words on Christmas?

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.

Is "anno ... quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono" a date?

"there's always been this there's 1:20:45 always been this love of of faith and reason together for for centuries of of 1:20:52 the Catholic Church there's been this love of of faith and reason"

An excellent way why a Catholic should be definitely allowed to exercise his reason as enlightened by the faith, which is what Young Earth Creationism does.

"it possible that 1:23:20 maybe that there's a third explanation and that is uh that the speed of life has changed over 1:23:27 time that's what sometimes you hear the argument that well maybe the speed of light is has been different over time 1:23:33 and therefore um it used to be quicker and that beam of light that's from a 1:23:39 Galaxy a billion light years away um got that light got here sooner than a 1:23:45 billion light years um and I I say well I'm I'm open to to evidence for that 1:23:52 certainly you know it's just like if they can find evidence for that I'm I'm I'm fine with that I have no problem 1:23:57 with that and I like the fact okay we're talking Science Now provide the science as long as we agree that this is not a 1:24:03 religious question then you know go out there do do do the science and and prove prove with the science um and I'm I'm 1:24:11 willing to accept reasonable evidence for that but I don't I don't think 1:24:16 there's there's been any solid evidence"

This is known as the position of Setterfield, it is as mentioned not mine.

I don't set out to prove that the speed of light has changed, I state that astronomers have failed to prove either the Cosmic Distance ladder or even Heliocentrism.

But it seems you have been neglecting Young Earth Creationists after Barry Setterfield. He wrote a paper in 1987, which you are basically quoting, along with Trevor Norman.

"it's almost impossible to square it with with 1:25:08 the appearances"

Again, no.

Fr. Robinson is simply speaking from ignorance of the field he is pronouncing himself on.

For the grand finale, I obviously disagree the assessment that all who commented did so for lacking peace, or that Fr. Robinson absolutely needed to "provide" peace as if it were lacking.

At worst, pretending Young Earth Creationists lack peace is another strawman.

Same Counterpoint to Fr. Robinson, different highlight:

The Truth About Creation: What You Need to Know w/ Hugh Owen
Radio Immaculata | 9 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMiS1qlbVc

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

5:23 He said it somewhat longer in City of God books 12 to 17.

V e r y clearly.

Mudshod

@mudshod8432

Also,

“We should let ourselves be advised to take all the rest to begin with according to the strict literal sense and not to assume that it is being talked about figuratively, but that the things and events which are being related both exist and also stand figuratively for something else... Now, however, since there is no reason preventing us from taking these things first of all in a proper, literal sense, why should we not simply follow the authority of scripture in its narrative of things done, and first accept that the things really were done, and then only after that investigate what else they signify?”

– St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book VIII, ch. 7.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@mudshod8432 Amen!