No, I'm Not Dispensationalist and Not The Run of the Mill Christian Zionist

Dispensationalism Didn't Come From Darby — It Started With A Lie
Wholehearted Ness Podcast | 8 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4PRBUEYZQ

3:21 The literality of 1260 times 24 hours (rather than times 365 days) is actually not new to Catholicism.

The non-literality qualified as "prophetic days = actual years" is new to Protestantism a bit earlier, like in Newton (a Protestant and a Non-Trinitarian, as well as a Mechanicist who saw God in corporeal terms).

That Luther and Calvin saw papacy as the Antichrist (and Calvin saw St. Gregory I as one of the last Popes not to be the Antichrist) didn't necessarily reflect into that detailed views about the world wide rule of the Antichrist.

In Catholicism, both Patristic and Medieval, the Antichrist was seen as an individual, but as a specific one, not as the office held by an individual.

And 1260 days was seen as literal both in regards to Henoch and Elias and in regard to the Antichrist (usually, I think, not concurrently but consecutively).

3:35 That part, he is against Catholic tradition at least the majority version.

The chapter 20 of the Apocalypse is referencing a "first resurrection" which equals "from sin" and not "from corporeal death" and which therefore takes place in Baptism and in Confession, sometimes in Extreme Unction, in Communion, in Spiritual longing for the Sacraments.

I agree the saints reign in Heaven 1000 years .... on average.

St. Stephen Protomartyr has reigned 1992 and 1995 years in Heaven, supposing he was killed the calendar year after the Death and Resurrection and depending on whether that was AD 33 or 30.

Carlo Acutis and Clare Crockett, who are not yet validly canonised, but I presume are in Heaven, have been reigning respectively 20 and 10 years.

(1992 + 10) / 2 = 1001 years, but we know St. Stephen and Sister Crockett are not the only two, and the total number, therefore the actual medium time they have been in Heaven, is known to God alone.

So, the millennium already started by Pentecost AD 33, whether it was that year or three years earlier.

4:07 God's covenant with ethnic Israel is ongoing in each ethnically Israelite Catholic ... whether he be an individual convert baptised by Monsignor Ghica, a Marrano from the Baleares or a Palestinian from Bethlehem.

It is also broadened to ethnically non-Israelite Catholics.

I'm covered on both sides of my ancestry, insofar as I remain a good Catholic (or become one again).

4:22 A partial return of Jews to the Holy Land, in connection with their conversion seems to have been taught by Anne Catherine Emerick, independently of Lacunza.

A reading of Apocalypse 11 seems to indicate sth like that.

And the treading by the Gentiles may refer to some violence by Zionist Israelis, and against precisely Christian Palestinians.

4:28 Not even fragments ... well, a millennium after Armageddon was actually taught by Justin Martyr and a few more, before Lacunza.

To Justin it seemed to be the majority view.

5:33 The "Gentile Church" in Irving is a misnomer.

Catholics are Jews and Gentiles united, not one separate from the other. Note I'm including Marranos and Palestinians in the count, not just individual converts from Judaism.

8:27 Two tenets of Lacunza, sourced before him.

Both on Apoc. 13:1.

Ver. 1. I saw a beast coming out of the sea. By this first beast several understand antichrist, as St. Irenaeus, lib. v. chap. xxviii. and St. Gregory, lib. xxxi. Moral. chap. xli. But this is not certain. By the other beast[1] coming up out of the earth, (ver. 11) many understand antichrist's false prophet, some famous impostor and magician in antichrist's time, who will do great wonders and signs. The seven heads and ten horns, may again signify a great number of kings and princes, who shall be overcome by antichrist, and submit themselves to him. The dragon, or devil, gives that great power to antichrist, signified by the different parts of the beast, some like to a leopard, others to a bear, and others to a lion. The head wounded to death and cured, is either antichrist himself or some one of those heads or kings, cured by the devil and diabolical arts after a mortal wound. (Witham)

This first beast, with seven heads and ten horns, is probably the whole company of infidels, enemies and persecutors of the people of God, from the beginning to the end of the world. The seven heads are seven kings, that is, seven principal kingdoms or empires; which have exercised, or shall exercise, tyrannical power over the people of God: of these, five were then fallen, viz. the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, and Grecian monarchies: one was present, viz. the empire of Rome: and the seventh and the chiefest was to come, viz. the great antichrist and his empire. The ten horns may be understood of ten lesser persecutors. (Challoner)

So, Witham considered that the antichrist is a future tyrant.

Challoner that it's a system, but not futurist.

Witham is probably not George Witham (16 May 1655 – 16 April 1725), but Robert Witham (1667–1738), both dead before Lacunza came to manhood.

Challoner is Richard Challoner (29 September 1691 – 12 January 1781), whose life overlapped with Lacunzas.

Now, in favour of a "future" (or no longer so) Antichrist system, one can mention that A) Antichrist can't come to power in an absolute vacuum, he needs a power base, and B) St. Paul says the Great Apostasy must happen first.

However, I would not consider that a late Apostasy within the Catholic Church is this beast, I rather take that as Harlot ... I'm wary when I see clergy persecute the Latin Mass, Traditional Nuns or Young Earth Creationists. As to the Beast it's probably a much wider coalition than the Apostate parts of Catholicism, and apostasised much earlier and sometimes indirectly.

With four leopard heads as Judaism, Islam, Calvinism and (probably) Freemasonry. I could be wrong, the fourth leopard head could be Dispensationalist Free Churchers, and Freemasonry be entirely "mouth of a lion" ... which is otherwise where I would cast Liberal Anglicans and Liberal Lutherans, the majority over in Europe (the remaining faithful are a different matter, even if not actual Catholics).

Bear, mystical Persia and Russia (with passivity against power quasi required).

Fourth Beast, end times version = Communism (and might involve atheist versions of Freemasonry, like Grand Orient). Its "state religion" is DiaMat, which features Heliocentrism and Evolution. Its "Inquisition" is Psychiatry, when it isn't KGB or clerical KGB agents. Oh, FSB ...

Some Orthos May Think I'm Victim of Prelest for being into Fatima or Lourdes

Here is my response to them, under a video by one of their priests. By the way, if some of them pretend I'm myself pretending to such visions, no.

My writing is learning, not visions (not own or unapproved ones, perhaps except Garabandal, and that rarely), and also not my personal devotion, but learning I find useful in the general forum.

Why The Orthodox Church Hides Mary's Apparitions | An Orthodox Priest Responds
Orthodox Talks with Fr. Ivan Shandra | 7 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt46RiDVexc

10:43 Does this stop you from making an assessment of whether Fatima is closer to the revelation to Serafim of Sarov (as you see it) or to that of Nikitas?

Dito Lourdes.

12:21 Lourdes and Fatima were for the community. Healings are still validated in Lourdes.

Even if all healings from tuberculose peritonitis were explained retroactively after validation as blue cheese or goat cheese having a mold very similar to penicilline, that leaves half of the healings unexplained ... of the validated ones that are a minority of all reported.

I've just argued that the bigger War Our Lady warned of began in 1934 and ended in 1990, so it came under the pontificate of Pius XI. (WW-II was an episode in it).

12:45 Independent verification and fulfilled prophecy also mark Lourdes and Fatima.

12:56 Fatima and Lourdes are much less about St. Jacinta and St. Bernadette, than about praying the rosary.

Lourdes also about the Immaculate Conception.

13:05 I have argued that the last apparition of Fatima was the vigil of the last time the Czar celebrated the Feast of the Protection of the Theotokos.

Fr. Jason Charron has gone one further. He argues the time in Portugal which is further West coincides with First Vespers of the Feast in Kazan.

JD

@CaffeineBlast

Could this be seen as a call for unity?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

hglundahl

@CaffeineBlast I don't know, and I'm not the one authorised to reply for either body.

But could be.

JD

@hglundahl I think this occurrence could be seen as a message to us that it’s God’s will we reunite. We need to conform our will to His, if those authorised to reply don’t move to reunify then the lay people need to make it happen. Easier said than done, but it’s time in my opinion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CaffeineBlast Not sure how much lay can do on their own.

13:15 A secret about events to come is in fact no new doctrine.

Just as Jeremias foretelling the alliance with Egypt would fail was no new doctrine.

In Lourdes, there was no new doctrine, since the doctrine was already defined dogma just a year or two earlier. But it came as a confirmation after doubters.

theresejesu

@theresejesu4296

No a secret about events is not new doctrine. Doctrines are teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

Lourdes did not confirm the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.. Bernadette being told by Mary that she is the Immaculate Conception helped to confirm that Bernadette was indeed receiving apparitions of Mary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@theresejesu4296 Obviously that too.

Helped to confirm, depends on "to whom" ...

If anyone in the Church was diffident in face of Döllinger, that person was helped by Lourdes.

The Church as such was already decided, obviously.

theresejesu

@hglundahl to whom - the competent authority to determine the authenticity of the apparition, the Bishop.

And I agree with you about those who are not well versed in Catholic doctrines being helped also.

There is a book that I have really appreciated by Father Groschel* titled A Still, Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations.

I think if more people read and understood what he shares about apparitions, messages, etc, there would be a lot less confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@theresejesu4296 Yes, to the bishop of Tarbes and the curate of Lourdes, the words confirmed the apparition was genuine.

They already knew that the dogma was dogma.

Father Groschel*, noted.

* footnote

Still Small Voice: Practical Guide on Reported Revelations
by Benedict J. Groeschel (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898704367/theotokoscath-21

15:14 I appreciate the caution, as practised by the Church of Old Rome.

B♥!

@beautardyartist

Yes except Orthodoxy comes from Constantinople, not Rome.

Владислав Круглов ConISuoiAmici

@vlakrunn

@beautardyartist but Rome was orthodox, sometimes even when Constantinople was not

B♥!

@vlakrunn please explain because I'm not following???

Greg Chrysostom

gregchrysostom2193

@beautardyartist Iconoclasm, for one thing. Rome put a stop to it, not the eastern bishops. And Arianism. Something like 90% of the Churches bishops were Arian for a time. Rome resolved that as well.

B♥!

@gregchrysostom2193 correct - and Orthodox clearly make icons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@beautardyartist As does Roman Catholicism.

Guadelupe, precautions and verifications are very clear:

The Hidden Miracle Behind Our Lady of Guadalupe
Messenger of God | 7 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igFIbna8OVo

Answering and Old Earther Who Took Up Tree Rings

Believers, Are We Thinking Clearly About the Age of the Earth?
A Few True Things | 14 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYlqeDZby7g

2:33 For around 1800, it's child's play to find a plethora of tree rings any given series (different species and locations, different series) that extend 50 rings on either side of 1800. Overlapping.

For around 1800 BC, the tree ring samples preserved to us are fewer and smaller. Meaning less overlap.

I would say that back in 1800 BC, the tree ring matches are picked partly for matching the carbon date 1800 BC.

Now, on my carbon 14 tables, a YEC recalibration, close to 1800 BC, we have this:

1574 BC*

97.392 pmC, dated as 1793 BC

Close to 1700 BC, we have this:

1543 BC*

98.108 pmC, dated as 1700 BC

In other words, the tree ring dates will be picked so that the series match a 93 year long distance, but that 93 year old distance would have been disproven by longer tree ring series in more samples, as the real time was just 41 years.

1793 to 1700 versus 1574 to 1543 BC.

2:42 "extending more than 10 000 years in some regions"

Except, no single series does this.

Different series are being matched to different other series, with, as mentioned, one kind of tree in one region being a series.

3:03 Let's quote CMI** on Ice Cores:

In other words, the counted annual layers can deviate a little from the first guess, but the first guess constrains the limits of variability. It is like numerical analysis in which a first guess is required to begin and then successive computer iterations change the first guess somewhat to arrive at hopefully the correct answer. For instance, if the first guess concludes that the annual layer thickness at the 2,500-metre depth is around 1 centimetre, annual layer counting will not allow an annual layer thickness of 5 centimetres, let alone about 3 metres as in the creationist model. The variability in the measured parameters and the impact of non-periodic events provide adequate scope to find a preferred fit to the data.

In contrast, in a creationist model, the annual layers in the middle and lower portion of the GISP2 ice core would be subannual layers due to sub-storm, storm or other cycles of weather lasting anywhere from days to months.

3:50 Volcanic markers would tend to be dated by methods either totally unreliable like Potassium Argon or the compressible one of C 14.

So, say there was a volcanic eruption on Thera in carbon dated 1609 BC, the ice core trace would be considered as 1609, whereas that eruption could have been used by God for some of the Plagues of Egypt (with miraculous configurations avoiding Goshen, like wood fires avoided burning a Crucifix) and have as real date 1511 BC, the date of the Exodus in the chronology I'm using.***

4:27 The sediments in Lake Suigetsu, the counting of the lower layers (most) presumes that mud and flower deposits have not been perturbed since the time they touched the lake bottom, otherwise mixing would have and on the Young Earth Creationist view obviously did perturb the number of layers, which obviously increases them.

Did you read a Gish Gallop by an anti-Duane Gish old earth apologist and not digest it?

On the method involving absorption into objects of surrounding elements, I frankly don't know the solution, I'm not really even sure what the method is. However "radiometric dating" I have at least two options, apart from carbon 14 already mentioned, which is my own speciality, namely more of the daughter isotope already present or in some cases, the decay was sped up.

A speeding up of Uranium becoming Lead in Zircons gives a heat problem ... which solves the mud problem on how the ground was dry so quickly after the Flood.

4:47 According to one set of assumptions, they converge on the conclusion the Earth is in the billions.

The meteorites from the beginning of the solar system would be a case of Uranium Lead, and either a meteorite from the Flood had lots of Uranium and heated up lots of the surrounding mud to make it solid ground, or the meteorite simply had more of the Lead isotope that's the result of that Uranium isotope decomposing.

Apart from the question how a half life that big can even be measured. For carbon 14, just take old historic objects. Impossible for the U-Pb method about meteorites "from the beginning of the solar system". C14 taking 5730 years to get to 50 % of original content, fine. U such and such taking millions or billions of years to get to Pb such and such (there are two isotopes and both involve Uranium and have different halflives and involve lead) ... not measured in real time, for sure.

4:58 And Young Earth Creationism, on the level of Creation Science, comes from examining many different lines of evidence, pointing in the opposite direction once you unpack some assumptions and ask if there are alternative Young Earth Creationist ones.

6:30 If scientists have been wrong, the question "what does the evidence say now" isn't answered by "what do the scientists say now" ... especially not in subjects which unlike medicine have no clinical testing (note, not saying all fields of medicine have valid such, psychiatry hasn't a valid one), and which unlike engineering don't involve bad guesses leading to bad results observable in real time and traceable to the engineering mistake.

Speaking of engineering mistakes, a bridge in Genua collapsed a few years ago, killing loads, was the engineering mistake not to replace it earlier, or was it to build that bridge in the first place to have that much car traffick going by?

6:39 For the chronology after Adam "no one was there to see it" is not one I'm using, at any rate.

The post-Flood Palaeolithic, I'm dating it to Noah's remaining lifespan after the Flood, because Noah and his sons precisely were there to see it.

And he called his name Noe, saying: This same shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed
[Genesis 5:29]

Indeed, after the Flood, there was very little agriculture before Noah died, and when Noah tried and included viticulture, he ended up ridiculed, so the project was postponed to after he died.

Again, when Noah had died and Nimrod built Babel, he eventually had to break off the building of the city. When Peleg was born or about to be born.

What city was abandoned, unbuilt, finally?

Göbekli Tepe.

From 350-ish after the Flood to 401-ish after the Flood, and it is in the right spot to have been reached from the landing place going westward into NW Mesopotamia:

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it
[Genesis 11:2]

The people who saw it could count the number of years that Noah lived and the number of years that Arphaxad was born and his son Saleh and so on to Peleg. My point isn't "no one was there to see it" but on the contrary, someone was. And I rely more on observers back then than on reconstructors now.

The argument is good for creation of the Moon, that sort of thing.

7:33 A reliable inference from evidence available today excluding real or purported eye witness from the past is at least epistemically inferior to real or purported eye-witness from the past, including preserved in oral memory.

I need very strong evidence from today's material and non-verbal observations in order to overturn even a Pagan tradition.

In the 1970's someone had found out that the oldest parts of Rome dated to 550 BC. Two hundred years after the "supposed" date of Romulus founding the city.

However, since them I've heard of the Hallstatt plateau. EVERYTHING from 750 to 450 BC carbon dates to 550 BC.

So the carbon date 550 BC as found in the book by Raymond Bloch°, is, after all, perfectly compatible with an actual 750 BC date, like 753 BC, the traditional founding of Rome by its first king Romulus.

7:49 For loads of things, the CMI is providing a viable alternative explanation.

For carbon 14, I am doing so. Myself as I cited my tables.

For new functions like sight originating in "accumulated small changes" or if we go from genetics to linguistics, human language doing so, the Evolutionists are criticising Creationism or the Biblical account and they are the ones lacking a viable alternative explanation.

8:19 OK, since you are looking for an alternative explanation in those rejecting old earth, when it comes to carbon 14 have you looked at me?

On my youtube channel which has no own videos, you'll find links to my blogs and one of them (directly there or via a blog that is) is "Creation vs Evolution" ...

When it comes to Babel, have you looked at me?

When it comes to Neanderthals, have you looked at me?

When it comes to Distant Starlight Problem, have you looked at me?

When it comes to nearly any other topic than carbon 14, Babel, Neanderthals, Distant Starlight, have you looked at CMI? creation dot com.

9:02 "Just as willing to question our own assumptions."

Not necessarily, being willing to test them is enough.

But have you seen Creation Ministries International test the assumptions opposed to yours? Because you have been on youtube since 18 May 2025 (doing videos) and I have not found Creation Ministries International in the search bar, nor CMI, nor AiG, nor Answers in Genesis.

9:38 If Christianity is true, were there Amorrheans / Amorrhites in Asason Tamar at the event of Genesis 14?

And they returned, and came to the fountain of Misphat, the same is Cades: and they smote all the country of the Amalecites, and the Amorrhean that dwelt in Asasonthamar
[Genesis 14:7]

Because elsewhere Asason Thamar is identified with Ein Gedi. And the only (or at least most recent) layer of habitation in Ein Gedi that could figure is carbon dated to 3500 BC.

1565 years earlier than when I place the event based on Abraham born 2016 BC.

Is Genesis 14 myth? Or was the atmospheric carbon level behind the carbon dated reed mats actually as low as 82.753 pmC? Those are the options. As a firm believer in Melchisedec, I'm highly preferring the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was lower.

If you were at NASA you may know some Catholics ... wish them a blessed feast!

---

* Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy
Tuesday 24 Dec. 2024 | Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-joseph-in-egypt-to-fall-of.html

** Ice cores vs the Flood
By Michael J. Oard | First appeared in Journal of Creation 18(2)
Pages 58 - 61, August 2004
https://creation.com/en/articles/ice-cores-vs-the-flood

*** Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What Martyrology, by the way?
Saturday, November 21, 2020 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 5:40 AM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-martyrology-by-way.html

° Les origines de Rome, Chapter V, Raymond Bloch, Que sais-je ? 1 Mai 1990 (updated edition after an earlier one in 1946)

Starting a Video by a "Catholic" Anti-Fundie

An Analysis of "Catholic Fundamentalism"
Splendour Project | 31 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaxyG3h2D_o

[good standing with the Pope]

2:13 Depends on who's Pope, right?

Leo XIV or Pope Michael II.

Clippy Clippy (Clippy奔走革命)

@Clippy奔走革命

😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Clippy奔走革命 Saw your site.

Believing Michael II is Pope is not an existential crisis. Thank you so kindly for the offer, even if it was indirect.

jmmvirta

@jmmvirta

Most people won't take Michael II seriously. The first "Pope" Michael was "elected" by schismatic laymen, not Cardinals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jmmvirta Most people didn't take the original apostles seriously.

Being elected by laymen is against current Church law, it's not against divine law.

And the laymen were "schismatic" only to someone who pretends Karol Wojtyla was "Pope". See Assisi 1986 for one very blatant challenge to such a claim.

---

You referred to this:

“What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”
― St. Ignatius of Loyola

Note two things.

1) He's defining for those making the fourth promise of the Jesuit order what it means. A little like St. Francis would be precise about poverty. I don't need to wear one single habit and mend it until it can't be mended any more, because I have not made the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. I also haven't made the fourth promise of the Jesuits.
2) IN the quote, it doesn't say "what seems to me black, I will believe white" ... some laymen thought "not Theotokos" was black, even if it came from the mouth or their hierarch. And the Church, a k a Pope Coelestine I, Saint Coelestine I, told them they were right to count Nestorius as already deposed by his words, even before the Third Ecumenical council confirmed the verdict.

I was a Fundamentalist when I converted to Catholicism and thought I could obey "John Paul II" ... this was before CCC § 283.

---

3:56 impenetrable cognitive fortress

The word is heavy with psychological and psychiatric connotations about delusion.

Very heavy.

Does this language exist in traditional (small t, as in chronologically pre-Vatican II or pre-Fifties) Catholic language?

Viewing oneself as sth and being incapable of even taking in arguments contrary to one's position are two different things.

People who get refuted by me in argument, or from their pov rebuffed, will resort to pretending I didn't take in their argument, my "cognitive fortress" is impenetrable, and this is because of sth I view myself as.

It isn't. On each issue where one can consider me as closeminded, I have been openminded. I have landed in a position rejected as "radical", "fundamentalist" and so on, and I'm not the one bringing up my status time after time, my opponents are.

I give a syllogism and a countersyllogism involving God and Geocentrism (you can conclude from Geocentrism to God, from Atheism against Geocentrism) and get caught time after time with people who try to tell me, as if they knew me better than I know myself, the issue is who I think I am.

I think I am a man created in the image of God.

I think I am a man who can decode what St. Paul in Romans I says everyone can decode.

And if I calculate someone's gematria with ASCII, I consider knowing ASCII qualifies "knowledge". St. John didn't say I need wisdom. He only says I need knowledge, and that that is wisdom. Or, on another reading, this is a riddle (to be actually solved).

iwan yids0818

@iwansaputra1890

you smell like martin luther.
it's all about me

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@iwansaputra1890 Your comment is all about me.

I've complained about people insisting on bringing me up as if "so and so is Pope" always would trump "such and such is heresy".

The laymen who called Nestorius out were not about them, they were about defending the Theotokos.

I'm also about defending what has been held and what is presumably still held by the Catholic Church, whereever She be, if She is indefectible.

Luther had core positions, not just technical solutions, but real core doctrine, that didn't exist 50 years earlier.

I'm Not the One Who Cuts Himself Off From Arguments

I was certainly not willing to change my mind when hearing this, but I was willing to take debate coming back:

The Third Judgment: What Really Happened at Babel
BLK SHP Bible Talk | 31 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRGVe3iUyiQ

These are my comments and at the end we find BLK SHP Bible Talk doesn't share my disposition:

4:20 Shinar is Southern Mesopotamia?

Why Southern ... if they journeyed from the East, not from the North, and started in the Mountains of Armenia, Northern Mesopotamia is a much better fit.

I think I have miqqedem with all translations prior to a Swedish one in 1700 on my side.

[Bible of Charles XII translates "österut" instead of "från östern" or "österifrån".]

5:04 Before we even get to chapter 11?

As in, there is no chronological overlap between the two narratives?

8:43 Where does Genesis say idolatry happened at this point in history?

I mean, as normally understood, as a form of religion. Self idolatry is another matter.

9:48 "similar amount of space"

Well, no.

For instance, if the Hebrews preserved Hebrew because they refused to do Nimrod's work, that would mean they were somewhere in the margins, where they would not get the full story, but salient important detail ... the edges of the puzzle, if you like.

In the Ark the covenant was with all eight aboard, and so the ancestors of Moses had a very "first seat" view. Giving them much more detail.

10:54, ah, you mean Thera and Nachor as idolaters would point to the time of Babel?

No. Not in a LXX timeline. In the chronology of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day (He was born so and so many years after such and such events before you come to "in the 42nd year of Augustus, in the sixth age, when the world was at peace"), Genesis 11 is LXX without the second Cainan. Peleg would have been born 2608 BC.

He died 2218 BC, and in 2165 BC, Nachor, Abram's grandpa, was born.

Babel happened when Peleg was born.

And nowhere does it say Nachor and Thera were born into idolatry, one can assume that Acts 7:4 doesn't refer to when Thera physically died, but when he died spiritually by becoming an idolater, when Abraham was 75 years old, so, 1941 BC.

Babel 2608, first named idolater 1941 BC.

12:55 Ah, OK, Genesis 11 rewinds the clock to before the different languages, OK, I'm good with that.

13:21 You are forgotting what you just said.

If Babel is a flashback, the disunion of languages in Genesis 10 is not something which already happened before. Or even started to happen before.

13:57 That clearly depends on when in archaeology you put Abraham leaving Ur.

I put Abraham banning Ishmael 50 years after Negev had a city near Beersheba that disappeared archaeologically in 3700 BC. I put Genesis 14 at archaeologically 3500 BC.

Why? Because Amorrhaeans were in En Geddi. They were attacked. Now, the only or latest possible archaeological population is the one that's dated 3500 BC based on reed mats used in the evacuation of temple treasures.

15:15 OK, by now you have an economic interest in disagreeing with me.

Not sure how much though.

15:46 My evidence for people spreading outward is, Babel, a k a Göbekli Tepe, launched the agricultural revolution.

A certain narrow path which functioned as a trap for wild beasts near Göbekli Tepe became a corral, allowing people to settle in the area, instead of hunting, as most of the economy was, barring Noah's farm and its débacle, and towards the end of Babel, wheat was being sown.

16:15 Yamnaya ...

Two huge problems for your reading.

1) Since Iberian was Basque, and Spain was settled from Yamnaya, Yamnaya isn't the probable origin of Indo-European languages, but of the single language Basque plus lots of substrate below Indo-European ones closer "home" ...

2) In my chronology, where I have given a good argument for Genesis 14, and at least some for placing Babel in Göbekli Tepe, Yamnaya 3300 to 2600 BC translates to after Genesis 14 to after Joseph died.

1881 BC

Terah died

1877 BC

83.97 pmC, dated as 3321 BC

1857 BC

84.371 pmC, dated as 3262 BC

1856 BC

Jacob and Esau born

...

1687

Joseph dies.

1678 BC

89.449 pmC, dated as 2600 BC

For full tables with some explanation of my method, go to the blog Creation vs. Evolution, crea vs evolu dot blogspot dot com, and look up December 2024.

[Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.]

16:33 You are misunderstanding the relation between archaeology and linguistics.

One cannot usually trace one language or its ancestry to one place thousands of years before it's written down.

The learned men are comparing spreads of populations and spreads of languages, but the earliest written Indo-European ones are Hittite, Mycenean Greek, and the Aryan vocabulary of the Mitanni.

All three in or near Turkey and at least the first two I mentioned West of Göbekli Tepe. BUT c. 1000 years after Babel.

18:22 How long after the Flood do you put this?

I find representatives of all mankind feasible between 350 and 401 after the Flood, i e Noah's death to Peleg's birth, with Göbekli Tepe built in 40 of the 51 years, and for that, there needs to have been sufficient people, and also for people staying home and not going there.

8 * 1.02^101 = 59 8 * 1.05^101 = 1105

101 years after the Flood, 5 % annual population growth would not suffice to more than little over 1000 people.

401 years after the Flood, we don't need that much:

8 * 1.02^401 = 22 478
More than twenty times more, just for 2 % annual population growth.
8 * 1.05^401 = 2 511 880 150
Two billion people with 5 % is way more than needed, and even more than probable.

531 years could also work:

8 * 1.02^531 = 294 972

Same blog, November 2024.

20:01 Actually, guess work.

Apart from a few divine names, like Juppiter having matches in Greek and Indian, or, without the Father part, in Germanic. But Tewes daeg doesn't translate Dies Jovis, it translates Dies Martis.

The idea of a "tripartite society and religion" isn't matched by all Indo-European cultures and is too common in itself to be a specifically Indo-European invention.

---

Tried to add this Josephus quote to a comment about Nimrod being more like Anthon La Vey and Vlad Tepec than the new high priest of an old false religion:

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!

And then I discovered, all my comments were gone. First the added comment below the other didn't get posted, then I renewed to post it as a separate one, then I saw a comment section with my comments gone.

Jimmy Akin is Misrepresenting the Question

DEBUNKING Geocentrist Bible Verses
Catholic Answers | 6 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB7b24UDOKA

0:07 Ideas proposed by sciences or ideas proposed by scientists?*

1:07 science has shown or scientists have pretended to show ... and how?*

1:29 Some scientists deny there is a privileged frame of reference in the universe.

Kantians.

It would be very correct if the universe were infinite. But if it's of finite extension, it has a periphery and therefore also a centre.

Infinity is an attribute of God and doesn't correctly even apply to extension.

1:57 If you take either the solar system as existing in the middle of nowhere, infinity on each side, and within it Heliocentrism to be true, the movements can be explained by masses acting in accordance with gravity and inertia. A very easy pick for an atheist.

If you take the universe to be finite and Earth to be its centre, the movements need explanations other than, perhaps in addition to, gravity and inertia of the involved masses.

Like, for the daily movement, God moving the visible universe (up to the fix stars) around us. Like, for other movements, angels moving individual non-Earth and non-stellar objects around the zodiac.

Like yesterday an angel moved Sun eastward and another one moved Moon eastward and they covered each other and God moved both so that Portugal saw a complete eclipse.

2:16 Based on how gravity works ... you mean in isolation from other factors?

Even for orbitting it has to interact with inertia.

Now, this orbitting of the barycentre, is it mightier than God, is it mightier even than an angel? No.

Ergo, the Geocentric and Theistic view is perfectly possible, unless you deny God and angels exist.

3:10 And you may notice that images of an athlete are very appropriate if an angel is moving the Sun.

For people who grew up with DC Comics, imagine Superman ... except the angel isn't overwhelmed by effort.

3:36 Would a mechanical account of how the world works be scientific if God as First Mover and angels as movers of celestial objects are correct observations?

"A scientific and mechanical account" as if they were synonyms sounds so DiaMat.

3:53 No, you have even missed C. S. Lewis and his observation on what poetry does.

It doesn't describe "our amazement" but the things that amaze us.

3:58 Praise is not necessarily non-literal.

If the thing you are praising is highly praiseworthy, its literal description may be praise.

4:12 Yes, look at its course ... not too closely into itself, obviously.

And note, the Geocentric view is exactly matching what you look, the Heliocentric takes some readaptation of it.

The readaptation isn't impossible. But is that enough to accept it?

4:37 I'm noting that King David is actually not praising God for having created the Sun in the past.

Verses 2 to 7 are all about what the heavens are doing right now ... precisely as Romans 1.

King David and St. Paul are both making the point that Sun and Moon to do this complex dance (as it is on Geocentric views) or if you prefer this violent dance, without dashing everything to pieces, have to be directed (in the present) by an intelligent mover. Whom everyone agrees to call God, to borrow a phrase from the Five Ways and most notably the First Way.

4:51 He is giving praise to God because he thinks ... rightly ... that his experience reflects how the universe really works.

You are pronouncing "based on his experience" as if it were at variance with how the universe really works or what he thought about it. Counterintuitive until proven ...

5:22 Phenomenological language is not merely about someone accurately describing what he sees.

If I do a car ride and find we pass 4 houses, but I actually missed 2 and there were really 6, "4 houses" would be phenomenological language.

But if I find we pass 4 houses and that is the actual number of houses, we don't call it phenomenological language.

In other words, the phrase implies some kind of inadequacy with things as we actually experience them.

5:44 A Geocentric would also say that "rises" is phenomenological.

The sun rises and sinks between two points of the year previously termed Solar Perigee and Apogee, and now mistermed Earth's Perihelium and Aphelium.

This doesn't change the view one has from each locality on earth that the Sun actually rises ... unless you are on a part of Earth where the Sun doesn't rise at a point of the year, which currently would be the case on the South Pole.

So, "rises" does not prove a box shaped universe. Or a Flat Earth. Either in itself or as intended by the inspired Psalmist.

6:53 No, the quote "the Bible doesn't teach us how the Heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" was either not said by Caesar Baronius** or not said during the Galileo controversy or neither.

The letter to the Grand Duchess Cristina was by Galileo and he quoted "a high church man" without specifying his identity.

Caesar Baronius had died in 30 June 1607.

Now, Caesar Baronius was close to St. Philip Neri (confirmation patron of Tolkien, by the way), just like Johannes Emmanuel Veith was close to St. Clemens Maria Hofbauer. So, the test proposed is, a close associate of a saint would not be totally off on a question like this, and while Caesar Baronius certainly did NOT utter these words during the Galileo controvery, J E Veith actually did write a book, properly signed and printed in his name, promoting literal six days continuous with the creation moment, in polemic against Day Age and Gap Theories, which were also held by Catholics in this time.

How is it fine for you to quote Baronius against the Galileo verdict of 1633, while that is not a true quote truly in this affair, and not for me to quote the canonisation of St. Clement Maria Hofbauer in 1909 in relation to the PBC of that year, as proof the judge, a Day Ager though he was, not having intended or having had the authority to intend excluding Young Earth Creationism? Is misinformation holier than true information or is "modern science" (which you have called "science") a kind of judge above the magisterium?

---

* He used the formulation "ideas proposed by science" and "science has shown" ... ** Fully Latin: Caesar Baronius. Fully Italian: Cesare Baronio.

Geocentric, Yes, Neither Flat Earther, Nor Sceptic About Everything I Need to Trust Someone Else On

Am I Actually Agreeing With Flat Earthers?
SciManDan | 23 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18t5ywLPkVo

7:36 You have forgotten a step.

Observations are a starting point.

What's the due process of stating one observation is misleading? Is it just to say this kind of observation could mislead? Or is it sufficient to say the model proposed instead would lead to the same observation?

No.

It's also to actually show why the prima facie interpretation cannot hold.

For globe Earth, we have Magellan. It corresponds to Aristotle's factually wrong but strongest 4th reason, "east of Ganges" (or whichever the river was) you have pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar). No, you don't. This was discovered a bit later, not least because of Eratosthenes giving the perimeter implication of the curvature. Then, more than 1500 years later, Magellan and Elcano made good for what the Indian adventure of Alexander didn't really provide.

For a moving Earth we have ... Lost in Space?

8:12 Indeed, I believe the process of triangulation to the Moon or the Sun (by the moon) is one which has been undertaken, because of people who told me so.

I do not believe the process of triangulating to alpha Centauri is correct because of people who told me so. Because, if there is an angel moving alpha Centauri and it's a proper movement (dito for aberration), that leaves 2AU outside a triangle of Earth to two positions of the star. With no length in the triangle, no triangulation.

There is a difference between accepting "someone else measured" and accepting "someone else concluded correctly" ... I cannot handle the apparatus to measure simultaneous angles from two places on Earth to the Moon at the same moment (like Brazil and Africa) and the calculations that add up to the Moon being ... looking up ... 362 600 km to 405 400 km up as the case may be that day. But I can validate the reasoning, like I know from geometry that if the angles had been 60° (to a line through bent earth) or 60° between them, the distance would have been .... also looking up ... sqrt(3)/2 times the distance. And I know simultaneous measures are taken and so have no reason to worry about what is moving.

And similarily, in a case where there is some doubt on what is moving, I can invalidate the reasoning used by the experts, unless they can prove to me that Earth is moving.

This Also Involves Implications on the Upcoming Feast

The Truth About Jesus' Ascension (Most Christians Miss This!) Ask NT Wright
Premier Unbelievable? | 3 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3r6otQslH8

18:02 To answer the question very briefly as to the objections.

1) As Earth is round, up is always outward.

In this case it's outward along the coordinate of the Jerusalem or more precisely Mount of Olives coordinates.

2) Heaven as in God's throne room isn't in the stars, but above them. (Further out on the Mount of Olives coordinates).

Unlike stars and planets, Empyrean Heaven isn't doing a circle around Earth each day-and-night.

19:00 Not within our space-time ...

Stargate cosmology?

19:57 Both the Temple of Solomon and the Second Temple and a Catholic Church before Altar and Tabernacle involve angels, denizens of Heaven being there to adore God, as they do in His throne room.

There is a deeper fusion of the two places in so far as the same body of Christ which in its own dimensions is present in Heaven (above the stars) is also, in the dimensions of bread, present on the Altar or in the Tabernacle.

This doesn't in any way deny that Heaven as such is above the stars.

21:26 God's presence can obviously make a place on Earth a second Heaven.

This doesn't in any way mean that God doesn't have a throne room above the stars.

The "joining of Heaven and Earth in Jesus" sounds great ... but it's vague. It doesn't answer where Jesus is now as Man.

A person going outward from Melbourne would, if he could get above the fix stars, presumably be in Empyrean Heaven ... and then have a half globe to trot before arriving in God's throne room. A half globe above the stars that is.

Apart from the Eucharist, this would have been common ground between the heretic Calvin and the Pope Saint Pius V.

21:50 Two objections to the Geocentric view:

And he added and said: Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the army of heaven standing by him on the right hand and on the left
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:19]
And Eliseus prayed, and said: Lord, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the servant, and he saw: and behold the mountain was full of horses, and chariots of fire round about Eliseus.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 6:17]

The second obviously is due to angels being able to displace themselves from Heaven and in a sense (less than God in the flesh) take Heaven with them where they go. As already said about angels adoring the Eucharist.

As to the first, Jesus didn't see Luoyang, the then capital of China, because China was in sight from where Satan had brough him, Jesus saw Luoyang because Satan provided (and good angels presumably authentified) the "television" from Luoyang. Micheas saw God's throne room in literally, as per the etymology of the word, tele-vision, a sight transported from very far away.

22:07 Neither 8th C. (or whatever) BC nor 1st C AD do the upward movements of Elias and Jesus seem to be metaphors taken as such.

On a Geocentric view, as per St. Thomas, St. Pius V or even Calvin and Luther, heretics though they were, there was no need to take it so.

Also, there was no need to be silent about what was actually seen, since Jesus simply disappearing from the midst is a thing that had been seen in the previous forty days and which had been described that way.

22:11 False alternatives.

I'm a Geocentric, I'm not a Flat Earther. For 5 or perhaps even 10 years, I have seen the false alternatives put as modern cosmology (including Heliocentrism on a local level, Sun then moving around the centre of the galaxy and that one being one of several similar things) vs Flat Earth.

Similarily, you are now putting as the two alternatives either "upwards is metaphorical" or "they believed in a three storey universe" ... box shape included and Earth flat in it.

Tertium very clearly datur.

22:16 "other place whatever that may be"

Hell doesn't necessarily have nine circles. But it very probably has Satan in the very centre of Earth, and no, this doesn't necessitate a hollow earth, the dimensions of Hell would be minuscule compared to the solid or molten centre in which Hell is presumably placed.

22:26 Assuming St. John in Apoc. 7:1 describes a flat earth is assuming he was simple. Or very heavily closed off from the Greek world. Plus not inerrantly inspired.

The Four corners seem to need to be places and the Medieval Sawley map treats them like that. That map is in a manuscript of a French, scholastic, manual of geography, and that means the author was into Earth, as a body under / inside Heaven being a globe. This doesn't preclude Land having four corners. Like Alaska, Cape Horn, in the West. NE Siberia and Tasmania in the East. NZ may excuse me if I take their place as a kind of post-Flood Earthsea, outside the original dimensions of Land.

But, assuming that 1st C people were Geocentrics is simply presuming they were believing what people back then are pretty well known to have believed.

And I would not say they were in error to do so.

23:10 Heaven may certainly be 1 whole light day up and some more.

This doesn't mean He hasn't a good view of Earth.

Again, posing false alternatives, loading the view you object to with obviously false implications that naturally it doesn't have.

23:47 Jesus sometimes does send troops, though.

Sisera's army got on the wrong end of those (and he himself got too close to a type of the Blessed Virgin).

The Flood can have involved some troops from Heaven too, especially around the Ark, even if the work of destruction may have been left to demons, who enjoy that kind of stuff.

Apocalypse 19 shows Jesus coming back from up there ... with troops.

24:09 Part of the story of Acts involves Jesus arranging a shipwreck and helping St. Paul to expel a Pythonic spirit.

The "crude force" isn't absent, any more than when He stilled a storm on Kinnereth.

25:16 "absentia" is a Latin word, not a Greek one. No -ía in Latin, only -ia with accent on the previous syllable.

Two Comments under a Bergsma Video

The Douay-Rheims Only Controversy? w/ Dr. John Bergsma
Matt Fradd | 27 May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_38mE9ruuA

0:38 I just read up Genesis 11:2 in New Jerusalem Bible or Revised such and in Douay Rheims.

"Now, as people moved eastwards they found a valley in the land of Shinar where they settled."
Genesis, 11 - Bíblia Católica Online
Leia mais em: https://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/new-jerusalem-bible/genesis/11/

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.
Douay-Rheims Bible Book of Genesis Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/01011.htm

Can I comment under this comment, or is it deleted?

Now, eastward and from the east contradict.

miqqedem means from the east.

And the reason for the change is a supposition about the story : that the Ark landed in the vicinity of Mt Ararat and Babel is supposed to be around Classic Babylon.

39°42.113′N 44°17.899′E for Ararat
30°48′57″N 45°59′46″E for Eridu.

Obviously Eridu is further east than Ararat. So, eastward would make sense.

Now, make another little supposition instead. Mountains of Armenia includes Mountains of Turkish Armenia, which includes Mount Judi near Cizre. The Babel we will see about is also known as Göbekli Tepe.

37°22′10″N 42°20′39″E for Mount Judi
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E for Göbekli Tepe.

Obviously Mount Judi is further east than Göbekli Tepe, so "from the east" makes sense. This is also what miqqedem means.

Two other observations. If you go from Ararat to Eridu, you will find the plain before crossing the Tigris into Mesopotamia. The plain surrounds Mesopotamia. It would make sense with "they found a plain, namely Shinar". If you go from Judi to Göbekli Tepe region, you cross the Tigris immediately, so you are already inside Sennaar when you find the plain around Harran (on Turkish-Syrian border today) as within this larger land. So, "they found a plain in the land of Sennaar," makes sense. Göbekli Tepe is midway of the Western half of the Northern limit of this plain. If Göbekli Tepe had another purpose than everyday dwelling and they dwelt a bit further South in the plain, the following words "and dwelt in it" also make perfect sense.

And, with Judi to GT, the E-W axis preponderates over the N-S, with A-E, N-S vastly preponderates over E-W.

Now, what does not make sense with Göbekli Tepe, on the face of it, and I have admitted as much, is, verse 3.

Bricks and mortar have so far not been found in Göbekli Tepe.

I can make a supposition on the meaning and consider etymological Hebrew senses, namely "they made whites and burnt them with burning and used thickening for thickening"* and argue, it describes stamped earth around skeleta of burned chalk, of which the presence of such burned chalk inside the stamped earth could be tested.

I may be right, I may be wrong, but I am not authorised to replace verse 3 as it stands with the actual text "and made stamped earth with burnt chalk skeleta" even though this is a possible way of building and one that is used, for instance in stables in Scandinavia (stöphus).

Just as, even if I am right about verse 4 ... well, let's check the two versions on it.

'Come,' they said, 'let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top reaching heaven. Let us make a name for ourselves, so that we do not get scattered all over the world.

And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

The Hebrew has: "and a tower and the top [is] in the heavens"

It is neutral between the two, but the use of New Jerusalem "with" suggests that the tower still stands under the top while it is in heaven, while the Douay Rheims at least allows that the top reaches heaven after discarding the tower - in other words that this describes the project of a three step rocket.

Even if I am right, with my supposition on content, that doesn't give me any right to change the text.

* I am not a Hebraist, but explanations adding up to this were given by one who was.

2:28 Not a Hebraist, but:

masculine singular third person הוּא hu he / it
feminine singular third person הִיא / הִוא hi / hiw she / it

Strong resemblance in spelling for he and she, right?

Sheshallcrush

@SheShallCrush

Vetus latina from 2nd century AD says “she”. That Latin manuscript predates Jerome and copied from Greek texts. Jerome wrote “she.” There is a Greek Septuagint found by Origin with surviving fragments published by Bernard Montfaucon that says “she shall crush.” It was in the Caesarea library Jerome utilized. Don’t ever let someone tell you “she” is a copyist error. Also, Bernard de Rossi, Kennicott, Fr. Francis Xavier Patrizi, and 1572 Polyglot contains Hebrew manuscripts that say “She.” The original was a “she” pronoun surrounded by masculine verb “shall crush.” Scribes coming across this original changed it to “he” so that it matches the verb. Scribes thought they were fixing it but actually ruined the original. This is how he became dominant while she died out. Ancient Hebrew also has plenty of gender discord (I.e Song of Songs). “She” pronoun with masculine verb to crush is evidence of antiquity. Also, the masoretic Hebrew is not the original. It dates to the 9th century AD and contains vowel pointing not present in the original. The original had a she vocalization tradition. However many manuscripts are visually ambiguous. According to Lectio Difficilior Potior “he” tradition came later. “She” was original. Look up Lectio Difficilior Potior. Hope this helps

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@SheShallCrush Checking, I thought you were wrong about the Hebrew, but here is the current Masoretic:

... zar·‘āh; hū yə·šū·p̄ə·ḵā

So, yes, there actually is a personal pronoun before the verb, which could have been "hi" (she).*

Thank you!

It does help!

* footnote

She shall crush thy head is the original Hebrew for Genesis 3:15
Sheshallcrush | 21 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5jk4nDagEg

She shall crush thy head original Hebrew part 2
Sheshallcrush | 28 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCgmifNZIU

Nope, the Geological Column is Not Well-Proven in the Terrain

The Most Amusing Attack on Evolution I've Ever Seen
SciManDan | 28 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVQkd8dp8w

5:33 What about genes and even combinations of different genes that cannot be explained by coming from small accumulating changes in other genes?

TheWetheriliWitch

@TheWetheriliWitch

In other words... mutations

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch The problem was when mutations cannot do it.

For a certain fish, a blind fish in Mexican caves, I think, the retina has ten genes, and because of one mutation on one of them and two on the other, the retina doesn't work, the fish doesn't see.

That's three mutations away from the complete setup for ten genes, and completely useless.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl Whats useless? Those mutations occured and propogated because the fish lives in constant darkness. Therefore developing the structures needed for vision wastes precious resources that are scarce in a cave environment, making those mutations very beneficial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch The structure needed for vision is there and is wasting resources.

The eyeball is there, the retina is there, it just can't see.

The thing is, a configuration that's three mutations away from a complete configuration of ten genes for the retina, that configuration is useless as far as seeing is concerned.

I'm sorry, I forgot the reference, it was a debate on Quora ten years ago, and that account has been closed, so I can't go back and check in it.

If the ten genes started building up slowly to makng a retina capable of seeing, they would have been wasting resources long before they could contribute to seeing.

6:40 Rock layers are dated ...

They didn't use radiometric when starting the narrative, though.

1) Radiometric. Extra argon was trapped in the Flood which solidified lava quickly. Or, both potassium argon and uranium processes were sped up so that the mud after the Flood could dryp up more quickly. Mud problem and heat problem cancel out.
2) Consistent order. That depends on "rock layers" ... the thing is, shale comes in many different ones of those, as a material, and so does sandstone. The land fossils usually come in one layer and so the "period" fauna actually reflects the biogeography of the pre-Flood world. (The sea fossils come in different layers, as they were at different heights in the pre-Flood sea or sometimes where it inundated pre-Flood land).

7:04 and radiometric dating

The big bluff.

TheWetheriliWitch

Not really if it can be reliably repeated over and over and over again

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch Key word reliably.

CMI has quoted a quoteable quote about how Evolutionists treat aberrant radiometric dates.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl What?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch Here is the text:

Underpinning everything, of course, is the theory of evolution and its passengers. As the archaeologist Professor Brew put it, ‘If a C-14 date fits our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out of date", we just drop it.’

This article:

How long have Aborigines been in Australia?
Published 27 Jan, 2006
https://creation.com/en/articles/how-long-have-aborigines-been-in-australia

footnotes that quote to:

Fully referenced in The Revised Quote Book, Creation Science Foundation, Sunnybank (Queensland), 1990, p. 23.

TheWetheriliWitch

@hglundahl Creation Science Foundation doesnt seem like a very good source, and regardless, theories are made around evidence, not the other way around.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TheWetheriliWitch "Creation Science Foundation doesnt seem like a very good source"

Do you believe they could accurately quote the archaeologist Professor Brew?*

If not, that seems like paranoia about them.

"regardless, theories are made around evidence, not the other way around."

Why?

And what exact relevance to this discussion?

* footnote:

Probably:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Otis_Brew

7:46 Indeed. In California la Baja it seems that the "late" Cretaceous land fauna was flooded by "early" Palaeocene marine fauna, not the least decapods.

8:11 You are basically grading "early" or "low" by your view of what was earliest in fauna, like Ediacaran only containing bacteria and similar.

9:27 I'd go with habitat for land fossils.

The assemblage zones of Karoo are side by side in the terrain. And that means that different habitats could be buried side by side, and give different "assemblage zones" (local subdivisions of for instance Permian or Triassic) simply by containing different fauna.

9:35 Mixing would not be apparent in land habitats, though.

Sure, a T Rex could be washed 500 km away, but if so would not appear today as a recognisable T Rex fossil. If a T Rex fossil looks like an assembled skeleton, presumably it was buried in situ.

9:40 Rabbits would be a land habitat, and trilobies a marine one.

9:43 Men would not have lived with dinosaurs in close quarters any more than we do now with Safari fauna.

10:05 Disagree with Hovind here. Sortings during the Flood, we would usually see just the top layer, or possibly some underneath that if the top layer was worn off later in the Flood.

10:45 Where they lived.

[SciManDan is presenting the fossils as sorted by when they lived, which between the interpretations is begging the question]

11:40 their position within rock layers around the world

Similar habitats result in similar layers. As similarity is defined by fossils contained.

11:52 often using radiometric dating where appropriate

Meaning, some radiometric dates exist, that contradict, like the radiocarbon ones collected by Armitage, but those dates are somehow inappropriate ...

St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

Catholicism vs Evolution · St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

The Argument for God That Changed My Mind
Actually Catholic | 6.VIII.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xilMR5kSQE

6:26 Noting that you switch between tertia via (argument from contingency) and now, when you object to infinite regress, as you should, you borrow it from prima via.

Railway carriages without a locomotive or with one is like the unmoved mover or lack thereof.

Apart from Geocentrism, an atheist could reply "but can we be sure they are all in the same train" or even "that they aren't all locomotives".

The series of changes in a wooden log burning to ashes has as first mover fire, but it's one fire of many fires. That's the equivalent of "the waggons are not the same train"

Heliocentric versions of Celestial mechanics tend to imply that the movers while never unmoved are also never purely passive, since they themselves exert some action by inertia (on themselves) and gravity (on each other) and there is no movement where this is completely subsidiary under a more general movement, like we Geocentrics see the Daily movement. That's the equivalent of "all the waggons are locomotives".

Apart from the text version "manifestum est et patet sensibus aliquid moveri, utputa sol" which I am sure that I have seen, even if I can't trace it online, St. Thomas confirms this was what he thought of in the Question whether God is one.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Prima Pars, Q 2, A 3

Versus:

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
Prima Pars, Q 11, A3

The first point of the three goes back to Q 3 on God's simplicity, where this is established in a way at odds with modern physics:

First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (I:2:3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.
Prima Pars, Q 3, A 1

St. Thomas presumed, as per our senses, that Earth and bodies on Earth, are in fact absolutely still. Which remains valid in Geocentrism, also apparent to our senses.

9:28 The train is not as such helping the Kalaam.

St. Thomas never mentioned the Kalaam, at least not in the five ways. And the locomotive of the train can have been pulling it since forever, including in circles. Precisely as God could have had a coeternal universe in which He had always moved heaven around Earth, instead of doing so just since creation.

Either way, the Geocentric position involves that God has done this so many times now, we cannot presume His power to be ending. Hence "unending power" in Romans 1.

And, obviously, the train metaphor belongs to Prima Via, so to Geocentrism, even if your main argument is Tertia Via.

You are saying that the single most fundamental fact about reality that anything exists at all is the one thing that has no explanation while continuing to demand explanations for absolutely everything else

This is not the worst one can get.

The most fundamental fact is normally the basis for all explanation.

Explanations and proofs both have this in common they can't regress to infinity. At some point one has to come to a primary which cannot further be analysed.

That's why I'm perfectly fine with answering an Atheist asking "explain how God can be omnipotent" as if asking for a mechanism, that God's omnipotence isn't the result of a mechanism involving any more primary explanations (and certainly none of the type science usually is talking about), but is the fundamental explanation for anything about the universe.

Objection four, the half concession. Even if you get a necessary being, why call it God? Why is it personal? Why is it good? Why does it care? Why is it Jesus rather than an impersonal ground of being or a brute mathematical structure? This objection is correct, and I think apologists are dishonest when they wave it off.

This is why Prima Via interpreted as Geocentric is superior to Tertia Via, with or without a Prima Via interpreted by a Heliocentric.

One could say, the first three ways point to "matter and energy" which Atheists are not denying.

They may say the chair is contingent, but the atoms it's made from aren't, or the atoms are contingent, but the energy quanta they are made from aren't.

Just as one might say that with Heliocentrism, the "first mover" is a multiple, Earth and Sun moving each other.

With Geocentrism, the Prima Via provides a daily spectacle of a feat of power by something or someone who handles all this power with sufficient delicacy for stars in the sphere of fix stars to stay in place, relatively to each other, apart from minor adjustments like "parallax" (misnomer of the phenomenon on the Geocentric view).

One can say that with Geocentrism, the Quarta and Quinta Via join with the Prima Via.

As in "argument from design" (yes, that actually is one of the five ways).

And, unlike the flagellum of the bacterium, visible to the naked eye since the beginning of Creation.

Catholicism is More Literal than Modern Protestantism

Including than a moderately conservative one, like the Holding family.

Suzanne Martser's Self-Defense Course Episode 5: Apocalyse When?
TektonTV Redivivus | 7 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj7iTp9beoM

Sorry, but St. Thomas would have flunked you on both verses.

But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat
[2 Peter 3:10-12]

Will literally happen, but ...

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth for ever
[Ecclesiastes 1:4]

... meanwhile Earth and Heaven, while being very affacted by fire will remain in place because ...

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 21:1]

... God will be, through that fire, recreating Heaven and Earth.

I think you will find the appropriate Question and Article in Supplement of the Third Part of the Summa, where one part is dedicated to Judgement and Resurrection of the Dead.

Genre isn't quite as important as you try to make it, neither of the statements is non-literal because of the genre. And how Apocalyptic literature is supposed to exclude the Geophysical is beyond me. It's at the opposite end of the Bible story to Genesis 1, which obviously also involves Geophysics.

NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

Calling out Conspiracy Theories That Aren't Theories, But Real (Featuring the Basham Case, not all of the video) · NinjaMonkeyPrime Goes Toxic Control Freak

And for a certain reason, I think it's someone who's French.

Two comments, he left.

I'm not replying to him. I'm exposing him to you.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

I

@hglundahl "What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?" Is that a serious question? If you aren't prepared for being a parent it affects more than just you.

Also, just bringing up the opposite doesn't negate the benefits. Just because you CAN survive without planning doesn't mean you can benefit with planning.

"One has to improvise?" How does one improvise a situation where you are lack the maturity, finances, or support needed to raise a child? Hurry up and grow older, get more money, and build a network?

"How awful to certain control freaks" Are you really this ignorant or just trolling? Is it wrong to plan a vacation? Is it wrong to plan for retirement? How about planning for a house? Would it be wrong to plan for a child's education?

I start to think you have serious mental health issues if you see a problem with helping people prepare taking on the responsibility of raising another human.

II

@hglundahl "You know, child spacing can be done in other ways than contraception, like abstaining during lactation" Wait, so now you're okay with helping people plan? I thought you were against that?

"Plus abstaining during Lent, Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays before the evening, perhaps Wednesdays too" Or you could use contraception. I sense you're against certain forms of birth control. Is there a hidden reason for that? And why during Lent?

"I don't quite see how your comment isn't a slur on many children in poor families" Wow, you really are a miserable person. What does being poor have to do with this? Are you against Planned Parenthood because they help people finance contraception? Is all this about how you don't like birth control methods other than celibacy?

I have made a pretty certain clear statement in the previous post I'm overall against Malthusianism, not just for white people (though they are disadvantaged if doing that in their countries and letting in others to replace).

Malthusianism is a trap for the population, and a person who contracepts when young will often face loneliness when old.

It's also a trap for young people who for some reason are in a precarious situation, as more old people are competing for their company. And less of them are available to keep the old company. Especially in the kind of situations so attractive to the old, of being some kind of mentor to a young person.

In some cases, the persons are not even legitimately young, someone is just stamping them as immature.

The fact of being poor doesn't change that. One should help poor people raise their children, without being overlording, one should not help them or anyone else contracept.

NinjaMonkeyPrime seems to think poor people would be better off without children. Wrong.

I am therefore making a kind of Thomistic case for the Catholic teaching against Malthusianism. It's evils have been observed with sense experience, not just guessed. Nor just deduced from the practises being banned by one's religion.

Overall birth avoidance should go with sexual abstinence.

And Contraception has a tendency not to stay with child spacing but go on into full blown Malthusianism.

I am not against the kinds of child spacing that take some effort and are therefore less likely to become Malthusianism.

Lactation is in itself an inhibitant on new pregnancies, while it lasts, but one can enforce that by abstinence.

Lent is a penitential season. Wednesdays and Fridays are penitential days. Saturdays are meant to prepare for the Lord's Day.

Keeping these abstinences will sometimes make the coitus coincide with the fertile period and come with "more volume" so likelier to get pregnant. It will also sometimes make it coincide with the infertile period, without this being the main motive for abstaining the other times around it. Overall, this will not have an effect of Malthusianism, but of child spacing. More months between the pregnancies. I very obviously am OK with that as long as the means are correct.

Prepared for being a parent, or not ... how it can eventually affect the child has so much more to do with some surroundings' reactions to the supposed immaturity than with the possible immaturity as such.

Also, just bringing up the opposite doesn't negate the benefits.

I wasn't unprovokedly bringing up the opposite. NinjaMonkeyPrime may have some case of Alzheimer preventing him from recalling what he previously said.

I keep track of it thanks to keeping the blogpost from yesterday.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

Helping people plan parenthood is an interest in population control. It seeks to control the population of unplanned parenthood. Why someone would find that nefarious speaks to some serious mental health issues.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime What's wrong with unplanned parenthood?

I asked what was wrong with unplanned parenthood because of his obviously thinking it an advantage that the population of unplanned parenthood be controlled, i e subjected to Malthusian measures.

How does one improvise a situation where you are lack the maturity, finances, or support needed to raise a child?

Before someone's maturity becomes an issue when raising the child, the child will probably have been already quite some years older than newborn.

Finances, well, it costs in many countries 1 million (I think 1 million SEK and so 100 000 €) to raise a child up to the age of 18. Obviously, it would be total Malthusianism to limit child bearing only to couples who have one million Sweish crowns ready when the child is born. This is an issue which can be repared as things go along and usually is.

Support ... well, some older people are way more supportive over a 20 or even 25 year old playing the mentoree, contrary to "call no man father" over supporting a 15 or even 18 year old having a child. That kind of preference is obviously evil. And it comes from their own Malthusian past, they don't have sufficient children or grandchildren to supply them with young wanting their advice and approval.

Just because you CAN survive without planning doesn't mean you can benefit with planning.

I think he meant "can't" ... which makes me think he's French or some other nationality where the end consonants of English words aren't pronounced.

I was not the one saying planning was per se wrong. He was the one pretending that populations with unplanned parenthood need to be controlled. He was the one confessing to be a control freak, I was not confessing to a preference for chaos over order, I just prefer chaos over death and infertility.

Is it wrong to plan a vacation?

No, but it would be wrong to cancel a vacation because the plans are disturbed and one has to improvise.

Is it wrong to plan for retirement?

If the plan is cutting expenses on children and investing the savings in one's old age, yes, that's very wrong. That's the horrible choice three or more generations have been making and ruining Western society by. It's obviously always right to plan for retirement by having children.

How about planning for a house?

I prefer a society in which houses can be obtained somewhat cheaper and also inherited (I'm against inheritance duty).

Would it be wrong to plan for a child's education?

Only if you make the existence and validated realism of the plans a precondition for allowing the child to live with his or her parents. It wouldn't be wrong, but it would also not be immediately neeed. And school choices (other than homeschooling out of principle) should ideally be left open to when the boy or girl is well or ill in his school he's sent to without specific plans.

... if you see a problem with helping people prepare taking on the responsibility of raising another human.

For those who want to raise another human person, another man, pro-life charities exist. Pro-life policies can be enacted. A pro-life metality can be cultivated.

I strictly only see a problem with helping people to "take responsibility" for not doing so when not being prepared, by either killing or contracepting.

There is nothing at all hidden about the fact that I am Catholic, and as to Catholic pro-life values, I had them before my conversion.

I didn't adopt them out of obedience to the Church after having previously been "pro-planning" in the sense that PP is. I was attracted to the Church, as already Christian and already holding these values, and inheriting them from my mother. Because I didn't see many other alternatives which also upheld them. Anglicans had been fairly pro-life (as in banning contraception) at the Lambeth conference of 1920. In 1930, they were "pro-responsibility" in the evil sense that NinjaMonkeyPrime supports. I had been aware of this newer policy within mainstream Protestantism, not indeed before I was baptised, but before I opted out of Lutheranism to become a Catholic. I count it as apostasy.

And yes, that goes for some number of Neo-Himerite or otherwise non-Trad Orthodox as well.

I start to think you have serious mental health issues if ....

If I'm an actual Catholic, he obviously means. This is a way of persecuting Catholicism. Without needing to say that that is what one is persecuting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Transfiguration
after First Vespers
5—6.VIII.2026

In monte Thabor Transfiguratio Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Catholicism vs Evolution

Catholicism vs Evolution · St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

The Church, Darwin, and the One Question Still Open
Actually Catholic | 4 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5fokJ7zolM

2:15 I think you misrepresent Humani Generis.

Here is the quote:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

Pius XII didn't simply tell Catholics "investigate the science" he said: whether from science or from the Bible, see if it's probable or possible or not.

So far from being a blanket acceptance of Adam's bodily evolution, it's an invitation to discussion behind closed doors ("on the part of men experienced" = excluding non-experts, a condition no longer possible since non-experts have been dragged into the question) and the discussion can obviously both argue and even conclude that no, it's neither scientifically probable nor theologically possible.

In a case from 1830, there was a condition on submitting to a future decision of the Holy See in regards to how to interpret Vix Pervenit. The corresponding phrase here has often been taken as that, but Pius XII doesn't say "future" unlike the dicastery in 1830.

I think I have a right to reject the possibility from the previous decision on Session V of the Council of Trent.

Obviously insofar as I can prove that a bodily birth of Adam from non-human parents is incompatible with the traditional view of God's goodness before the fall and therefore with the fall.

2:51 "researchers converging"

Independently of each other? Not certain. Independently of a common framework, both ideological and in academy logistic and institutional? Certainly not.

"John Paul II" was in 1996 (if you got the year right, but you probably did if it's a different speech from the 1992 Galileo speech) scamming those in the Church who still held him to be Pope and to be obeyed as such (so, excluding Sedevacantists, Palmarians, Conclavists and FSSPX).

Anyone who thinks he's an actual saint needs to get him a credible excuse.

3:25 What God in the abstract can, given the relation between secondary causes and the primary one, is one thing.

What God actually did is another.

For the Galileo case, yes, God could given His omnipotence have chosen to act exclusively through inertia and gravity on the level of stars and planets around stars, and God could have created a Heliocentric universe. This doesn't argue that He actually did.

Because, Romans 1 says God is showing off His attribute "unending power" in some phenomenon visible with the naked eye and unmistakable. Which turning the universe around Earth would be.

And if the factors are gravity, inertia and God's action independent of and added to both, Geocentrism cannot be excluded, and that is also what we see.

To return to the primary and secondary causes, a thing can be a secondary cause (like the daily movement of the universe around earth) and still have only the primary cause as its own cause. Otherwise there would be a regress into infinity within secondary causes, which is what precisely we cannot have for Prima Via to work.

There may be similar or even weightier reasons to reject an "Adam whose body came from evolution" ...

3:43 "the document that binds ordinary Catholics"

Oh, CCC § 283. One reason to reject as non-Pope the "Pope" authorising that "catechism" ...

4:30 There is.

Nearly directly in Trent Session IV.

"It decrees, that no one ... presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers;"

But each and every one of the Fathers, while differring on detail, some denying there were six literal days, preferring a single moment, each of them was Young Earth Creationist. Therefore Trent Session IV is binding to Young Earth Creationism.

Again, Trent Session V. Adam was the first man. There were Neanderthals, but insofar as Neanderthals were men, which by now is amply proven, they were not before Adam.

This does not directly conflict with Gap Theory or Day Age theory insofar as you place all of the Anthropocene within the generations of Luke 3.

But by now, there are very good reasons against such scenarios, which are less likely than the standard Evolutionary one and also less likely than the Young Earth Creationist one.

Evolutionist views of the "emergence of man" (as per CCC § 283) require other views of the fall than Trent Session V authorises and requires, first three canons. Under pain of anathema.

And given datings of skeleta, accepting Deep Time but not the Evolutionist view is basically impossible.

Conor Foran

@UrielAngeli147

I think the Kolbe center has some answers to these, even if I don't support their strict literalist seven day position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@UrielAngeli147 They actually do support young earth creationism.

I'm doing parallel worok to them.

5:13 "Aquinas" distinguishes "how does this come from that?" (science) versus "why is there anything [rather than nothing]?"

Where exactly so?

I did not catch this distinction in the quinque viae.

Why is there anything seems to refer to Tertia Via:

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

However I think the question "how does this come from that?" is involved very much in Prima Via:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

For instance, not in an endless regress of moving cause behind moving cause ... by the way, I have seen one sentence given as:

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion, like for instance the sun.

The word "creation" is actually not even mentioned in the Five Ways / Prima Pars, Quaestio 2, Article 3.

5:50 OK. Adam was engendered by humanoid creatures of roughly our anatomy, but as non-human obviously without speech.

How does Adam's soul, directly created by God, fare in such an environment?

Look up feral children!

So, given Adam's soul is an image of God, but being raised by beings without that kind of soul is a hindrance of expressing it, the Evolutionist scenario involves God committing an act of cruelty against Adam before he sinned.

Try to solve it by giving him "kind of parents" who could speak? You have just denied he was the first man, instead. In 1950, this option was not open to any theologian, and of those who took the previous one, some committed cruel acts to boys growing up. Look up Henk Heithuis. That kind of thing did not happen in Italy, where in 1962 or preceding years an Ottaviani had been planning to give the "future decision" by defining de fide that Adam was created like the Bible says. Among the episcopates who blocked this was the one where Henk Heithuis's malefactors were not being punished by superiors. The Vatican II has been called "The Rhine flows into the Tiber" and BeNeLux is clearly Rhine league at the council.

6:14 So, Adam could have had two progenitors who were not human, and he was human?

See previous for the cruel absurdity of this.

[To be continued? Well, someone has deleted the comments after the 4:30 one.

Update on YouTube Hiding Comments
Jun 2, 2026 | Anthony Repetto
https://oaklandthinktank.medium.com/update-on-youtube-hiding-comments-b11e212c0769]