Roman Catholic YEC Here

Evolutionists Do NOT Want You to See This
Answers in Genesis | 11 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3mR0XQe9Y

25:21 Cuvier was a Protestant. He may not have been a Protestant believer, but he was a Protestant.

38:15 or sth ... by about 1850, the majority of Roman Catholic theologians were still strictly Biblical Creationists.

You had Gap Theorists and Day Age theorists gaining ground towards 1880 or sth, but every Catholic Theologian in good standing was either assuming, or repenting of at some time not having assumed that Genesis 1 was history. An example of the latter was a priest who withdrew his book because he understood that if he didn't, it could be put on the index, he was allowed to quietly withdraw it instead and so be spared that disgrace.

40:12 Scofield, Reference Bible, 1909.
Haydock, Douay Rheims with Catholic commentary, first edition in installations, starting 1811, when Catholicism was illegal in England, much like Christianity was in 1980's Czechoslovakia. Here from the 1859 edition which is online, let me quote the last comment on Genesis 3, given as comment on Genesis 3:24, but actually a comment on ALL of the chapter:

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)

40:48 Millions and millions of Catholics bought the Haydock Bible.

And they remembered Young Earth Creationism is Catholic, even when they had no direct back-up in the contemporary utterances from Rome.

One of these was a man I met in Rome in 1986. I was already on my way to conversion, I was doing Pentecost Holidays with the Latin classes in Rome. I was visiting the St. Peter's a bit more than the rest of the class (a must for a Swedish Latin class in Rome was obviously identifying the tomb of Queen Christina who exiled herself to convert), so when I exited, I happened to meet Tom Zimmer. An Irish-German ethnic and US war Veteran, he died 9/11 or 9/10 in 2009 or so, he gave me a recent tract, and all of his recent tracts then were updates on his tract book

Hope 84 — to Honor Our Lady's Assumption

which he sent me. He lived as a penitent beggar, he wrote and distributed tracts, and from his tracts, it was ultra clear he was a Roman Catholic, which was where I was heading, and ultra-clear he was a Young Earth Creationist or at the very least an anti-Evolutionist. His tracts taught that God hates the film "Planet of the Apes" ...

In my childhood, my mother forbade me to see that evil thing, and when I grew into a young adult living without my mother or grandmother, I basically avoided it because of the words of Thomas Raymon Zimmer, to those knowing him, Tom Zimmer.

Haydock > Scofield.

41:07 You cite Hodge, who died in 1878. Unfortunately an Old Earth Creationist. For a comparable time period here is a number of Roman Catholics who published Young Earth Creationist tracts or wider tracts with Young Earth Creationism featured specifically in appropriate places:

J. E. Veith Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt Vienna, 1865

A. Bosizio Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie Mainz, 1864
idem Die Geologie und die Sündfluth Mainz, 1877

V. M. Gatti Institutiones apologeticae-polemicae 1867

A. Trissl Sündfluth oder Gletscher ; Das Biblische Sechstagewerk 2nd edit. Munich, Ratisbonn, 1894

G. J. Burg Biblische Chronologie Trier, 1894

43:58 "ideas have consequences, and sometimes it takes decades before we see the negative results"

Well, it seems Pius XI was the first pope who in some ways came out as actually believing Heliocentrism or some version of non-Geocentrism. Sure, Popes had been allowing Heliocentrism since 1820, they had allowed Catholics to read Heliocentrism and probably get cosy with it. But neither Pius VII nor Gregory XVI said you should be Geocentric. They just made sure you could read Giuseppe Settele's book and later even Galileo and Copernicus. Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X didn't speak much on it either way. Benedict XV in passing in the context of Dante Alighieri said he could have been wrong to be a Geocentric, doesn't take away from his edificational value on the Divine Comedy.

Only by Pius XI and Pius XII do we find a bit more wholehearted support of non-Geocentrism, the latter also explicitly for Big Bang and for Old Earth. Decades later, the building they occupied as Popes is occupied by what I take to be an Apostate to Liberal Anglicanism. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a non-Catholic and therefore non-Pope, was a friend of the Anglican "Bishop" Tony Palmer, who was pretty notorious not to say obnoxious for being a liberal theologian.

49:54 A Catholic will not admit the time of Baptism, the mode of Communion or what you believe about the Eucharist, the presence of absence of Confirmation are side issues.

The Protestant views on these matters are a first step to the apostasy here seen.

Heliocentrism was respectable among Protestants while Galileo was condemned. Not the Reformers back in the days of Copernicus, but they were also against the taking of Interest (Luther a bit more, Calvin a bit less than Catholics). Protestant culture at this time was fine with Interest and fine with Heliocentrism.

And reinterpreting Joshua 10:12—14 to accomodate this was a prequel to the issue you are talking about.

[This one seems to have been taken down, as well as most above]

56:39 You may be Biblically half and half consistent to reject biological evolution and accept billions of years.

Not really, the inconsistencies are more obvious to Catholics.

Mark 10:6 mentions the "beginning of Creation" and a Protestant might say "that means the beginning of the human creation" ... some Catholics may have echoed it, but consistently a Catholic can't do that.

You see, the excuse is:

If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister.
[Colossians 1:23]

To begin with, Mark 10:6 doesn't feature the restriction "that is under heaven" ... with Adam and Eve when the stars were made, you won't have Deep Time well before them on Earth. But to return to the historic issue of ideas.

A Protestant will say, "well, St. Paul obviously means human creation, you don't preach to anything else ..."

A Catholic should not borrow that. We preach to demons by exorcists telling them to remember they were beaten by Christ. We preach to salt and to water in the making of holy salt and holy water. We preach to food items and wine when food is blessed in the Easter vigil. We preach to pets by blessing them. St. Francis preached to birds, St. Anthony of Padua to fish.

A Catholic has no excuse like that of a Protestant.

But, what is even more obvious, since carbon dates, you have no way to be rejecting an old origin of man while keeping the millions and billions of years. If the atmosphere was millions of years old when La Ferrassie 2 died, it certainly didn't have so low carbon 14 levels that a dae shortly before the Biblical date of the Flood would misdate to over 40 000 years ago.

If La Ferrassie 2 is a misdated lady (who on Doomsday might feel grumpy of having been dated tens of thousand years older than she was), then the atmosphere also is very much younger.*

57:10 Martin Luther had no false doctrine to protest about, he's the spiritual ancestor of Templeton and Dawkins.

57:36 As a Catholic, as outside the Deformation falsely named Reformation, I cannot participate in a "New Reformation"

But a little tip.

You can consult online Bibles and print out relevant chapters, WITHOUT ripping your Bible.

Preferrably use a version which in Genesis 11 says "from the East" and NOT "to the East" ...

And there is good glue so you can post it on Church doors WITHOUT damaging the much posher wood work than the Wittenberg Church had.

57:50 "you can believe this book, right from the very first verse"

An obviously Lutheran school teacher told me Genesis was myth up to the Flood, mixed myth and history up to Abraham and was historic from Abraham on.

Mr. Tom Zimmer very certainly believed ALL of Biblical history was historic.

Pius XII, much as he held a faulty understanding of things, at least insisted, Genesis 1 to 11 is overall historical in some sense, and while he said that many Catholics read the Haydock Bible and skipped the part on "in some sense"

I do believe every verse in the Bible, including the ones in Matthew 28:16--20 that exclude the Deformation as even remotely possibly valid, and excluding only false translations, like the King James is faulty on Matthew 6:7. There is no ban on repetitive prayer in a correctly translated or original Greek New Testament.

And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard Be not you therefore like to them, for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him
[Matthew 6:7-8, Douay Rheims]

Jesus forbids us to hold speeches out of nervosity. Not to repeat ten Hail Mary (10 * (Luke 1:28b, Luke 1:42b, the name of Jesus, and an added prayer)).

59:24 Douay Rheims:

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels 5 And every height that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ
[2 Corinthians 10:4-5]

Counsels would be more things like astrology than things like Ancient Philosophy. There is obviously one Ancient Philosophy which St. Paul did take issue with:

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:
[Colossians 2:8]

This is not a question of the "four elements" in Aristotelian or Platonic philosophy, which Aristotle also called "essences" ... it's a question of "elements" also known as "atoms" in Democritus and Epicure. The guy who changed this perception was Karl Marx, in his doctoral dissertation, before he became an Atheist. It's the very first entry in his Collected works.

He's wrong. The Bible never warns against Aristotle's major tenets, indeed, it rather appeals to one (Prima Via from Geocentrism) in Romans 1:

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:20]

* Dr. Terry Mortensen will certainly agree, as other people on AiG or CMI, that La Ferrassie 2 and other Neanderthal Ladies and Gentlemen were not pre-Adam, here is an article stating with good and detailed argumentation they were not pre-human:

Neanderthals: A very human race
by Gavin Cox | This article is from
Creation 45(4):38–40, October 2023
https://creation.com/neanderthals-are-human

I would however disagree on this one:

Neanderthals were post-Babel migrants who lived in much of Europe during the ‘mild and wet’ Ice Age, an inevitable consequence of the Flood.

No, they were a pre-Flood race who had nothing to do directly with the Ice-Age. However some of the pre-Babel migrations in the Ice Age would have profited from high amounts of Neanderthal heritage.