Trent Horn Answered Pretty Decently to Redeemed Zoomer, Mostly

I studied Protestantism for 20 years. . . I’m not converting. (Reply to ‪@redeemedzoomer6053‬)*
The Counsel of Trent | 2 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knw_mypga_s

12:20 It so happens that knowledge of human development still leaves what Aquinas taught about Jesus and Mary extremely exceptional.

He doesn't just say they immediately had rational souls (or perhaps one moment delay with the Blessed Virgin), he says they immediately had the use of reason.

Like, could already consciously pray to God, at the very minimum.

13:29 St. Paul in Romans 1 supports natural theology.

Very arguably that of God turning the universe around Earth each day. Or a few minutes faster. The 24 hours of the Sun being also partly due to an angel taking it the other direction.

Denial of that led to Paley's clockwork / clockmaker analogy, which is basically Deism. St. Thomas could in theory have seen a clockwork, perhaps not actually, but suppose he had ... he would still have preferred saying that the universe was an instrument that God first made (like Stradivarius) and then played (like Paganini).

Again, when you accept long ages, you get very funny views about what the Fall of Adam was. The one possibility that's not a huge no no in Trent Session V is, Adam lived 750 000 years ago as single ancestor of Homo Sapiens, Denisovans and Neanderthals, or even better in this respect even longer ago, so he also is ancestral to Homo erectus, and the fall took place as Genesis 3 describes.

The problem with this view is, not from Trent Session V, but from historicity of Genesis 3. If you argue that Moses saw it in a prophecy, you land with two more questions: why, if so, did Moses' prophecy get the genealogies from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham so wrong? and why did Moses' prophecy describe two people (Adam in Genesis 3 and Cain in Genesis 4) as tilling, sowing, harvesting, if that was 750 000 years ago?

Without a historic Genesis 3, you could ask "did God really say" (!) about Genesis 3:15 which is a major proof text for the Immaculate Conception.

So, Thomas Aquinas and Ken Ham, "même combat" as they say over here in France. Ultimately, Ken Ham hasn't discovered the implications of Genesis 3:15 yet ...

* RZ also accepted a challenge from Scholastic Answers, here they are both on same livestream:

Converting Redeemed Zoomer to CATHOLICISM (ft. RZ)
Scholastic Answers | 1 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrJOQUOxu0

It links to:

The Key to Understanding 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' and Vatican II
Christian B. Wagner | Apr 1 | Updated: Apr 14
https://www.christianbwagner.com/post/the-key-to-understanding-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-and-vatican-ii