Well, what do you think? Who won this debate and why.
@orthobroslovemyplaylists6254
2 жыл бұрын
The person I like the most won, as always.
@andrewkelly2028
2 жыл бұрын
@@orthobroslovemyplaylists6254 Matt Fradd? Neal?
@jakelivingstone5747
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon in my opinion. Also, God promised Noah He would never flood the world again, but there have been countless local floods. If it wasn't a global flood, that would make God a liar. Can't square that one.
@massachusettssucks5088
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon
@jamesf.a.jimenez7459
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon
@Littlemermaid17
2 жыл бұрын
I usually only watch the interviews as the debates don’t interest me much but I’m very much looking forward to this one 👏🏻
@Bryan-ct2qm
2 жыл бұрын
Oh, I am so here for this! Thanks for hosting this debate (which I'll be consuming initially in podcast form) -- I'm sure there's a lot of push back from certain circles; however, this topic has been unavoidable for me since reading the introduction to Lapide's Commentary. I just want to raise my hand as one interested party. When Gideon Lazar was on a month or two back, I was a little despondent that the young earth bomb got dropped with only a few minutes to spare. Bravo, all
@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast
2 жыл бұрын
I come in with an acknowledged predisposition for a particular view (which I still have), but I was legitimately impressed with how this went and how interesting it was.
@petersaines2048
2 жыл бұрын
I'm just AMAZED by how much these guys know.... and REMEMBER on demand 😲
@takmaps
2 жыл бұрын
I guess it helps to debate a topic you've actually done research on
@thesipesisrandom4534
Жыл бұрын
Thank you Matt for hosting this! Most won't touch it!
@maxcarvalho9071
2 жыл бұрын
I found it quite shocking to hear Jimmy was hesitant on affirming the whole cosmos would be transfigured by the second coming tbh.
@kristen6563
2 жыл бұрын
Same! And that was just glossed over.
@creativebutmmo
4 ай бұрын
I stand with Jimmy on that...the teachings of the Bible, at best, are majorly a revelation for the closest cosmos to our planet...it is fair if we don't overemphasize on things tradition or church didn't give a clear opinion on, as if it is compulsory for valid faith...
@xxxfairyyxxx
2 жыл бұрын
Both debaters did a great job. Thankyou so much! And thankyou for hosting this debate.
@c.kevincrow2115
2 жыл бұрын
Do not forget the standard model of physics requires a "singularity" (period in which we can't figure out how to apply the laws of physics) in the first moments of the creation of the universe. That's rather significant; as is recent Nobel Prize winner Penrose's rejection of the standard model (for one rather more problematic from a theological perspective). My point is that Catholics assume more things are considered as settled within the Physics community than in fact are.
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
It also makes one wonder if science can change and is in its very essence uncertain how the early church had such high certainty regarding Revelation. Was their faith "too certain" only to now be displaced hy less certain science?
@ericsonofjohn9384
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, we don’t understand the inception of the universe very well. That doesn’t mean that all the physics that leads up to that idea are wrong.
@c.kevincrow2115
2 жыл бұрын
@@ericsonofjohn9384 What it means is 1) some things are wrong; 2) some physicists are well aware of it. What I am reacting against is 1) the idea all physicists are of one mind; hence Catholics shouldn't be shy to reject a) a pop scientist spouting nonsense about eg QM entailing reality is nonexistent; b) a major figure in the field stating, with difficult-to-interpret irony that the moon only exists when perceived; c) the idea philosophy and intuition from common experience have nothing essential to contribute.
@williamavitt8264
2 жыл бұрын
@@c.kevincrow2115 you're falsely trying to characterize Catholics as blindly following science the same way fundamentalist protestants blindly follow the YEC model. We don't. At all. You're attempting to create a gotcha by building up a ridiculous strawman that doesn't exist and was fabricated in your own mind. Nothing in your comments should be taken seriously by anyone. See how easy it is for is to dismiss nonsense? We do that with pop scientists who say dumb things too like "The Earth is pear shaped." The Earth still isn't 6,000 years old
@c.kevincrow2115
2 жыл бұрын
@@williamavitt8264 No, my statement is much simpler than you're taking it to be; and the rhetorical intention is no more than to provide the well-intentioned (particularly minimally-scientifically-educated Catholics like myself) with useful information. Don't worry about what I'm "attempting"- just take the words in their accepted meanings. Also, I'd ditch the phrase "blindly following science" - it's the sort of tangle that thwarts communication.
@drewe5138
2 жыл бұрын
Also, a power plant is in no way a nuclear bomb. The core is kept at critical unless you are powering down the reactor. The reactor can be at supercritical. If there was a runaway criticality, and all of the safety features failed, the core would just melt, it would not explode like a nuclear bomb.
@awb07d
2 жыл бұрын
yep they dont use fuel thats enriched enough to explode like that
@jdotoz
2 жыл бұрын
This is true; it's a well known joke among nuclear operators that "the reactor is critical" is just business as usual. Prompt criticality, on the other hand, is a bad day.
@dustins382
11 ай бұрын
Yeah Jimmy really used false equivocation here.
@drewe5138
2 жыл бұрын
Great debate by both sides. One thing that I feel I should address is the idea that we know almost everything about radioactive decay. When I was getting my nuclear engineering degree, it was made extremely clear to us that things like carbon dating can be extremely inaccurate. Many issues like this carry into related topics. We know a lot and are constantly researching and learning more. This isn’t to discredit the point, but it is a bit of an exaggeration.
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
There are also core assumptions with the radiometric dating method. Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero. That is scientists assume zero daughter isotopes at time zero. Which is already an implicit assumption against creation. God could have created different initial isotopes and we have no way of knowing the initial values. 2: Contamination like flooding or lava can impact isotope numbers. By loss or gain. 3. Constant decay rates. Probably a safer assumption in my opinion, but you would know better if extrapolating today's rates with 6 billion years is safe. I never was convinced by the YEC point that this is a stretch. However, the helium leaching experiments are interesting. And I find the critics response also fascinating that some helium could have leached into the rocks.
@danielshea9264
2 жыл бұрын
Not to counter what you are saying, I barely know anything on this topic; but isn't James saying that radioactive decay specifically is extremely accurate and not necessarily carbon dating? Or am I just wrong about that and they are more related than I thought?
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
@@danielshea9264 It is accurate but the assumptions can be 100% wrong leading to billions of years of error. It would be like looking at a tub of water, seeing it half full and the water dripping. And then just backdating the time when the water started dripping. That is a massive assumption. We don't know if the owner of the bath poured buckets of water hours ago, whether the rate was the same all the time or whether the owner had a bath and just forgot to turn off the faucet completely by neglect. You could argue the rate of drip can be extremely accurate in its calculation. But your assumptions being 100% wrong can lead to errors of extreme magnitude.
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
@@danielshea9264 Carbon dating has less assumptions but is less accurate. Correct. Carbon dating can't date accurately too far back but its assumptions are safer in my opinion. Not fullproof though and many errors have been pointed out in sampling. Although scientists will say that carbon dating can go back 55000 years or so, tree ring dating contradicts this, going only back to a max of 15000 years.
@danielshea9264
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackdaw6359 thanks for the clarification.
@carolzappa1804
2 жыл бұрын
I was certain that Jimmy would clearly and concisely wipe the floor with this young gentleman, but I have to admit, I been given alot more to think about by this young man's thoughtful theories and questions. This was an EXCELLENT Discussion/Debate. Thank you immensely. God bless you all.
@loveandmercy9664
2 жыл бұрын
Bishop Barron and Jordan Petersons series on Genesis is really good.
@chaunceyhart1346
2 жыл бұрын
Creation, as described by Gideon today, is the Traditional teaching of the Church. Evolution can not be squared with Original Sin, Adam and Eve, the Flood the the list goes on and on.
@TruthBeTold7
2 жыл бұрын
Listen to Robert Sungenis' response to Akin.
@chaunceyhart1346
2 жыл бұрын
@@TruthBeTold7 I listened today, he did a wonderful job.
@l21n18
2 жыл бұрын
@@chaunceyhart1346 you’re conflating some issues there
@JohnBoysGold
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon Lazaar is one of the most exciting new voices in Catholicism. Full conversion of the Jews is coming and it's bringing with it some beautiful new fire to the Church.
@truthisbeautiful7492
2 жыл бұрын
But the Vatican opposes 'mission to the Jews' doesn't it?
@imjustheretogrill4794
2 жыл бұрын
@@truthisbeautiful7492 only the Pope and only he holds it non-definitively.
@Consume_Crash
2 жыл бұрын
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Nope
@JohnBoysGold
2 жыл бұрын
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Sungenis helped to clean up that language in the Catechism. More modern statements talk about a"dialogue" with the Jews as opposed to a "direct mission" aimed at the Jews. This is all pastoral and most likely ill conceived. Regardless of the Vatican's methods, if God wills it then it will be done.
@andrewvillalobos5686
2 жыл бұрын
@@truthisbeautiful7492 The Church is the new Israel. Moreover, our precious Jesus and the blessed apostles were ethnic Jews.
@GuadalupeZespol
2 жыл бұрын
Carbon dating is not at all an 100% accurate method. Scientists have made a lot od mistakes because it depends on the effect that Carbon had on something that Was dated. For example in the US They found a body od a woman and dated it with Carbon to be a thousand years old and it turned out it Was a murder victim from 1960 or something like that. The mistake occured because her body was in a soil where there was a lot of carbon. This is Just one example. Another huge mistake Was the one with dating the Shroud od Turin. All the other evidence was against the carbon dating that suggested the Shroud was from the 14th or 15th century...that means this method is helpful but it is also full of mistakes depending on the effect the carbon had on the dated subject.
@ericsonofjohn9384
2 жыл бұрын
The example you gave doesn’t help you. Misdating a corpse because of the surrounding material doesn’t make the earth any younger.
@GuadalupeZespol
2 жыл бұрын
@@ericsonofjohn9384 yeah but they were saying in this debate that this method is 100% accurate, and IT is not. Thats my point:) I dont know the truth, but Im saying scientists use methods that are not always accurate. I also read a lot about Animals that negate evolution. For example the giraffe or the bat:) IT is very interesting, how People that believe in the theory of evolution also hace to believe in a lot of miracles:D
@tinag7506
2 жыл бұрын
@@ericsonofjohn9384 it does.... carbon dating doesn't take into account several atmospheric changes that can cause the levels of that particular isotope within the specimens. Yes, we could be having wrong dates on several of these 'million year old' specimens. The accuracy cannot be even 50% if we take into account the several confounding factors that are conveniently ignored.
@borneandayak6725
2 жыл бұрын
@@GuadalupeZespol if the carbon dating is not accurate, then forensic science are all wrong and all criminals must be false accused?
@GuadalupeZespol
2 жыл бұрын
@@borneandayak6725 well I don't know, but if carbon dating is the only evidence then I think it's risky to accuse somebody...
@deubank1861
2 жыл бұрын
I think it would be good to have another show that discusses the philosophical approaches to creationism and evolution would excellent. I also think it would be good to discuss the Church Fathers and Magisterium beliefs in another show before moving into the “science” of both positions. Thank you for hosting the show. This was a big topic and probably too wide of a debate for one show.
@l21n18
2 жыл бұрын
I think one of the problems of this debate is that it put so many issues together
@charliecaruana4424
2 жыл бұрын
I haven’t got into the whole video yet, but I’m surprised that no one mentioned that different acts of members of the Magisterium carry different weights of authority. For example, a Papal audience is on a completely different level than the past rulings of dogmatic definitions and traditional doctrine and what was always believed by all and throughout all time.
@williamrobertson2407
2 жыл бұрын
Very illuminating and respectful debate.
@cvs-podcast
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon absolutely and objectively won the debate at 1:59:07 and following when he said, and I quote: _"Yeah, so maybe on this point I can bring up what I think to be a very significant problem with evolution which I would argue from a philosophical perspective evolution is impossible because of the distinction between substance and accident. And this is something that's not taken into account by scientists anymore because they're no longer philosophically trained. That what we're seeing is... Evolution basically advocates that there's only small changes of a few traits, a few genes, from a parent to a child. This change is only accidental. That means we're saying it's only changing things about the thing--it's not changing what it is. But it's proposing that if we add up those small changes in accidents from one to another that eventually we will end up with a totally different species, something that has a different nature than what came before: a different essence. And I would say that this creates a significant problem for our understanding of substance and accidents if the addition of lots of accidents can change what something's substance is _*_because it's fundamentally denying the substance exists. And if substance and accidents doesn't exist then our teaching on the Eucharist makes no sense._*_ [mic drop...BOOM!]"_
@verum-in-omnibus1035
2 жыл бұрын
100% 🙌
@a.d1287
2 жыл бұрын
jimmy does repond to this in his debrief on his channel.
@cvs-podcast
2 жыл бұрын
@@a.d1287 Thanks. I just listened to Jimmy's response at kzitem.info/news/bejne/mmyf2oKrqpGbg20 I have a lot of sympathy for those who struggle with the Essence/Accident problem because it is among the most difficult topics in philosophy, and it is easy to get lost. But, having said that, we must admit that Jimmy is very confused and seems to be suggesting, among other things, that: *(1) The change of substance that takes place at the moment of Transubstantiation is not a change of essence.* _But the inexorable logical implication is that the essence of the consecrated host is not really, truly, and actually the precious body, blood, soul, and divinity of the God-Man Jesus Christ, but mere wheat-bread._ *(2) The persistence of species (i.e., all perceptible appearances) can be really and meaningfully distinguished from the persistence of accidents.* _But this is a distinction without a difference. How would one possibly justify such a distinction?_ *(3) A property that is accidental to one creature can be an essential property in a second creature.* _But if this were so then so-called "Gay marriage" would really be true marriage, and Bruce Jenner would really be a true woman, and evil would really and truly be good._ God help Jimmy Akin. God help us all.
@grond21
2 жыл бұрын
I always thought this was an issue.
@williamcurt7204
2 жыл бұрын
You are misunderstanding essentialism (and, if you're reporting him correctly, Jimmy is as well) , at least as it pertains to Aristotle's (and thus Aquinas') 4 causes. The nature of something includes it's material cause (what it's made up of materially), it's formal cause (that which matter is given over to: it's ESSENCE ), it's efficient cause (how it got to be the way it is), and it's final cause (what it's purpose is). The essence, or form, of a thing is not identical to the other causes of a certain thing. So, there's nothing inconsistent in saying that transubstantiation changes the formal, essential cause, of the host to change, but that evolutionary process could also do the same to a living thing. One is by divine power, the other is by natural, teleological process of physics and evolutionary biology. Chemistry would be another example of the formal cause of something changing via physical processes. But, just because the formal cause, the essence, of something, can change via natural processes, that doesn't mean that it couldn't change via miraculous divine power. A change in the material cause necessitates a change in the formal cause, but the reverse isn't true as the formal cause has ontological priority.
@ConfederateCatholic
10 ай бұрын
Gideon won hands down. Akin relied heavily on non-magisterial statements, outright dismissed scientific evidence proffered by persons opposing the mainstream views, and was generally very condescending.
@windsongshf
2 жыл бұрын
I'm not a Church goer, but listened to this whole thing! Really interesting! 👍
@aletheiaquest
2 жыл бұрын
A wonderful, respectful, loving dialogue. It would be great if every opposing discussion went this way. Having said that, I thought Jimmy would put up much better info for his position. As I've given heartfelt pursuit of truth in this matter since 2005, I have not found any old earth position convincing. Not being Catholic, the "rulings" of "the Church" are not the foundation of my beliefs. Catholicism is not the standard of truth, so I have to look past all of the comments regarding this belief. Beliefs regarding current science changes with every generation and that generation argues for "modern" science. "Modern" science continues to change.
@paulcupp
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon should have used Jimmy’s own logic against him when Jimmy was pressing him to admit what the Magisterium does and does not promote about a young Earth. Jimmy had been saying that the opinion of the Fathers and the Magisterium is irrelevant when it comes to matters of science. But then he was pressing Gideon to say that he was at odds with the Magisterium on the matter of a Young Earth. Jimmy is playing both sides here. He is saying that the Magisterium has no right to speak on Science, but then was pressuring Gideon to admit that his view on a scientific issue is at odds with the Magisterium. But Jimmy, why does that matter at all if you are the one claiming that the Magisterium is pointless in that regard? Very unfair towards Gideon for using that tact against him.
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
Exactly. Popes apparently can only speak in favour of pop science with a low level magisterium statement but let's forget about all that history of the church declaring revelation. Very inconsistent.
@mysteriumfidei6984
2 жыл бұрын
It’s actually not unfair because the premises of Gideons argument are specifically hinged on the magisterium in regard to YEC.
@johnbaker4607
2 жыл бұрын
I don’t think that’s a fair representation of Jimmy’s position. He said on multiple occasions that the magisterium’s teaching on this issue is something we should take very seriously. Unless I missed something I don’t think he ever used the term “irrelevant” to describing the magisterium’s teachings on science.
@pokezeldamaster39
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe Jimmy was trying to imply Gideon's paradigm is not in line with the Magisterium i.e. his attitude towards science does not match the Church's?
@georgewashingtonrockwell3355
2 жыл бұрын
truly impressive mental gymnastics Akin displayed here. "well we have to be very careful not to examine the science from a position of theological bias.................. but if you believe in YEC even after the Church has expressed an openness to evolutionary theory over the past 1/20th of Church history, you're going against the Church." genetic biodiversity and special adaptation are not evolution they're hard-coded reproduction mechanisms to prevent the genetic code from breaking down as in cases of inbreeding. also "humans have a gene to produce egg yolk so our ancestors were lizards" and "you can watch a star explode 80 million years ago on my website" lel sheesh I love akin but this was embarrassing for him
@thesipesisrandom4534
Жыл бұрын
Jimmy's argument is that there are other things the Scripture and Fathers got wrong... No, Scripture and Fathers were not wrong.
@thomasjefferson6
4 ай бұрын
I think that Jimmy's approach, taken to their logical conclusion, lead Jimmy right into Modernism.
@kaizer4506
Ай бұрын
Being raised Catholic and Lutheran, I was relieved when I learned that Catholicism does not require you to have an opinion on this topic. The Lutheran schools I went to all taught young earth as undisputed fact that all Christians must believe and even in 5th grade it just didn’t make sense when they were explaining away the dinosaur bones
@bandie9101
2 жыл бұрын
very pleasant to listen to this debate
@georgenicolas2857
2 жыл бұрын
The age of fossil claim is silly to me because most scientists do not take into account that things do not decay at the same rate throughout history.
@travisbicklepopsicle
2 жыл бұрын
You think scientists don't take that stuff into account, but *you* do? Okay
@polvandelaar1117
Жыл бұрын
Comming into this debate with a rather neutral mind on the subject, I definitely think Gideon won. I think his epistimic priorities appeared to be much more sound. Also, especially in light of him at one point being made out to be an almost protestant, I think he spoke with the heart of a lion. God bless. I expected a lot of Jimmy, in light of his reputation, and though i can definitely see his talent as a debater, I have been left disappointed by his main agument amounting to an call to authority, and the authority being only the mainstream accepted lab coats. God bless. Thank you all and i look forward to much more.
@robp1000
2 жыл бұрын
Matt does a stellar job moderating debates.
@dynamic9016
11 ай бұрын
Really appreciate this debate..
@BillyBob-jg1gq
9 ай бұрын
Im not really team young earth or old but if i was lazar i wouldve zeroed in on akin saying we cant say anything in nature is the result of a miracle (when he was talking about the supernova from 88 million years ago)... if we go off that logic we cant accept christs resurrection either. Sounds like something an athiest would say to be honest.
@pixelprincess9
2 жыл бұрын
I don't agree with Gideon's position, but hats off to him for being articulate with his arguments and agreeing to this debate. I'd be terrified to go up against Jimmy Akin in a debate because I know he'd put me in the ground in the most charitable way possible. Thanks for the great discussion everyone.
@malachi7948
2 жыл бұрын
You don’t agree with what was revealed by God to Moses. You put your faith in infidel liars over the prophets of God and over Christ himself. You’re an idolater who believes in a god other than the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob who finished the fullness of the heavens and the earth in six days and who created man from the dust of the ground. REPENT AND FLEE FROM IDOLATRY!
@pixelprincess9
2 жыл бұрын
@@malachi7948 (you)
@malachi7948
2 жыл бұрын
@@pixelprincess9 Do you believe that God created man from the dust of earth and that he made the heavens and the earth in six days?
@migarza81
2 жыл бұрын
You might be terrified about going up against Jimmy Akin on a debate but he is terrified of debating Robert Sungenis, a Catholic Apologetic and Ph.D in Religious Studies and Science. Sungenis responded to all of Akin’s statements about this debate and said he would debate Jimmy on this or any other issue. I contacted Akin about this and Jimmy responded “…I refuse to debate Bob Sungenis…” I responded by telling him that I don’t blame him from refusing because Sungenis would surely win and even James White refuses to debate Sungenis on any issue. Robert Sungenis is the BEST Catholic Apologetic (and Ph.D in Science). Jimmy might be okay defending against lesser opponents…BUT Sungenis is one person no Protestant, Scientist or Catholic wants to debate.
@pixelprincess9
2 жыл бұрын
@@migarza81 > I contacted Akin about this and Jimmy responded “…I refuse to debate Bob Sungenis…” Source: trust me, bro
@michaeltischuk7972
10 ай бұрын
I love this topic, this is a very quality pint being served here.
@breddythewinner
6 ай бұрын
If Gideon had the ability to distill an advanced understanding of Newtonian, Relative, and Quantum physics, he would have been able to smoke Jimmy Akin on this topic. But, he’s making an argument from faith which is equally as valid, but doesn’t contend the observational Newtonian arguments that Jimmy is putting forward.
@pseudo-dionysiosareopagite6541
2 жыл бұрын
When Calvin argued that baptism doesn't justify, he acknowledged that the Fathers all disagree with him, and just says they didn't interpret it properly. It's funny that Jimmy Akin is basically doing the same thing. New knowledge trumping what Christians believed for 1800 years. I'm not saying Jimmy Akin is like John Calvin, but he's using the exact same logic - the Fathers can be wrong even if they all agree. At that point, why be Catholic? Because then tradition doesn't matter. As someone who became Catholic because of the Fathers, this is disheartening. His logic also seems pretty voluntaristic - he accuses YEC of being Protestant because it interprets Scripture and the Fathers apart from the Magisterium. I don't think that's the Protestant error. The Protestant error is interpreting Scripture and the Fathers incorrectly. I'm not Protestant because I don't think Luther's exegesis is correct, not because Rome told me not to be. That would be circular. We all use private judgement to at least decide which system we'll be part of.
@Numenorean921
2 жыл бұрын
no one would be saying that genesis was figurative if modern science didn't make ridiculous claims against it.
@AndrewofVirginia
2 жыл бұрын
@@Numenorean921 I somewhat agree. It feels like the herminuetics is being entirely driven by "the science." As if modern scientific consensus can inform and direct the interpretive method for ancient religious texts? It's really strange and kind of ironic, given the persistent claim of the theistic evolutionists that "the Bible isn't about science, folks." I agree that it's not about science, and I don't think herminuetics is about science either which is precisely why we should not be completely upending our interpretive method and rearranging long held theological beliefs all because of "the science." That said, there may be some room beyond the strict YEC view that is not a result of mere herminuetical gerrymandering. For instance, Genesis 1 by itself has long been the subject of some disagreement, and perhaps death in the animal kingdom, at least to some degree or another, is compatible with the biblical teaching on death and the curse. It is hard to imagine God creating an ecosystem in which no organisms other than plants died that bears any similarity to the complex food chains we observe in the natural world involving countless different species.
@l21n18
2 жыл бұрын
That’s assuming he age of the earth is a matter of faith, Jimmy denied that
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
@@l21n18 It was a matter of faith for 1900 years apparently as even the magisterium clarified. So can something be a matter of faith for 1900 years only to be not a matter of faith because of modern science?
@RRR-gr7nh
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackdaw6359 the Bible is not a science book or a history book, especially the way we document history today. It’s a religious text which uses stories, parables, specific characters and cultural examples to teach us something about God, his plan for us and his relationship to us. If there is history or science used then my take would be that it is only used as a backdrop to teach us a spiritual lesson. The main question is what do we take from that lesson and how do we apply it in our spiritual path? It’s like if I told a child a story about being careful about crossing the street and yet their takeaway is to focus on the color of the vehicle or the type of the street pavement that I used in my story.
@OriginalWinProductions
2 жыл бұрын
My bro Gideon went toe-to-toe with Jimmy Akin and held his own rather well. I'm impressed. I'm still an old earth creationist - I'd disagree with the idea we have common descent - but hats off to both him, and Jimmy Akin for taking YEC seriously enough to debate the topic.
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine not taking the 5900 year old position seriously because muh science.
@nathanbord6303
2 жыл бұрын
Yes. I second my appreciation to Jimmy for taking the YEC serious enough to debate. Praise The Holy Trinity the Author of Creation!!
@starlightatdusk4896
2 жыл бұрын
I lean OEC as well. What do you think are the best books and other resources for that position - Catholic and otherwise?
@Ageboy2001
2 жыл бұрын
Hey John Fisher 2.0, big fan of your content and I’m happy to see a rare charitable and well stated comment on this very interesting debate video
@jmctigret
2 жыл бұрын
I thought Gideon did terrible.
@tonymorris3378
2 жыл бұрын
Two comments. First, it is refreshing watching reasonable disagreement without put downs or silencing. The mark of true and honest pursuit of scientific truth. Second, and maybe this is just me, but I personally find it extremely elegant the way God created creation itself and it's inhabitants then in turn, and only because it is ordered after God first created it, both naturally and intentionally create. Children, dog species, art, and music are intentional creations. But there are also many examples of natural creations or some may say accidental creations. In either case, I respect and appreciate both points of view! Thank you gentlemen!!
@williamshepherd8464
2 жыл бұрын
Moses was face to face with God, and he wrote the Genesis account, I think if man evolved over billions of years and processes he would’ve included some detail of that. All the evolutionary nonsense is clearly unscriptural. And the Old Jewish saints took Scripture literally, at face value, that’s how it is supposed to be.
@junemcintosh1740
2 жыл бұрын
And currently many Jews hold to the 6,000 years since creation.
@misterauctor7353
2 жыл бұрын
"he would’ve included some detail of that" Argument from silence is an fallacy.
@malachi7948
2 жыл бұрын
@@misterauctor7353 It does not matter. The scripture is utterly incompatible with the lies of the world. The scripture and Christ himself affirm the existence of Adam and Eve, from whom all men descend, and who were created by God, Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from the rib of Adam. You’re not a Christian, you’re an infidel idolater, and you should be utterly banished by Christians. If they relent from banishing you then they’re condemned by the Word as well. REPENT AND FLEE FROM IDOLATRY!
@travisbicklepopsicle
2 жыл бұрын
@@malachi7948 the lies of the world? You mean the observations of nature? How could nature lie?
@travisbicklepopsicle
2 жыл бұрын
@@malachi7948 humans are made up of mostly viruses, bacteria, and fungi. About 60% of the cells in your body are not even human.
@saintly365
2 жыл бұрын
This was great, thank you for hosting this, Matt! I think Jimmy won, but I really appreciated hearing a reasonable young earth argument instead of just "because God said so". I grew up believing that creation was literally the 7 days outlined in the bible, and I didn't have much reason to question it until, actually, when I joined the Catholic church.
@chaunceyhart1346
2 жыл бұрын
You had it right the first time my friend!
@malachi7948
2 жыл бұрын
Beware of leaven of the Sadducees and Pharisees! You are an apostate rejector of the faith of Christ, and for what? The traditions of men from the whitewashed sepulchres of the modern day Pharisees, and the denial of the truth of scripture from the modern day Sadducees? How can you believe his words when you believe not the words of Moses? How can you believe Christ in truth when he told you plainly of the real existence of our ancestors Adam and Eve and confirmed what was revealed unto Moses? “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
@kevinmark6180
2 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately, you must realize that Jimmy misrepresented what the Magisterium has actually declared on these issues. Contrary to what Akin stated, the last authoritative magisterial statement on this issue was Humani Generis, 1950, where Pope Pius XII states: "Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. 37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." Please note that Jimmy Akin is a proponent of polygenism. The magisterial statements Akin has been appealing to, for instance, quotes by JP II, were not authoritative and in no way infallible. For an excellent presentation on establishing the dogma of the origin of man's body with the fathers and theologians, please see: PART 1: kzitem.info/news/bejne/yGqOraiIg3SUdZw PART 2: kzitem.info/news/bejne/0mN50pmQk2aprG0
@chaunceyhart1346
2 жыл бұрын
@@kevinmark6180 Absolutely. Thank you for pointing this out.
@TrekieGal
2 жыл бұрын
Same here dude!
@ctjernejcic8988
2 жыл бұрын
Great debate. We need more of this. A number of pro young earth, no evolution arguments. Genetic entropy, for instance is critical. Not all magisterial teachings are the se level. The majority (thru history) are pro creationism, and the opposite are mostly lower levels of magisterial teaching. Even the part if the catechism mentioned is a supportive passage, not itself doctrinal. That is why it is in smaller text.
@ForgedinPrint
2 жыл бұрын
You got a source for the genetic entropy thing?
@travisbicklepopsicle
2 жыл бұрын
You want pro young Earth, no evolution arguments..? Earth is billions of years old, and evolution is a fact of life. How would any arguments change those facts?
@ctjernejcic8988
2 жыл бұрын
@@travisbicklepopsicle there are valide scientific reasons for accepting a young earth and no evolution. See the series that I reference. The first two episodes can be watched for free.
@martanieradka4675
2 жыл бұрын
As a Catholic you can’t say millions of deaths created human! God created human being and human brought death onto himself!
@brians7100
2 жыл бұрын
This is the biggest issue with evolution from a faith perspective
@sharkybrickfilms5716
Жыл бұрын
That isn't necessarily Biblically accurate and many scholars disagree. Adam was referred to as mortal before eating the fruit; the more likely series of events is that Man was mortal, Man ate fruit, granting him immortality, and then God cut off Man's access to the Tree of Life, leaving us all mortal Edit: Even if you can't wrap your head around human death before sin, just remember that animals dying was always a part of things, it was just humans dying that was a result of the Fall
@rickybaker42
Жыл бұрын
I also grew up thinking this. The reality is, growth and decay are part of every living material being and it would be impossible to assert something other to be true of man's nature without evidence. There are excellent explanations for the perfection of prelapsarian man, but none of them have to do with man's nature having integrity or immortality. The endowments God gave man IN ADDITION TO our nature were gifts, not owed to our nature, and were therefore lost when man sinned. But God did not harm our nature as some kind of brutal punishment but still command that we somehow find a way to save our souls. I expect most folks are ultimately trying to solve the problem of suffering and loss, but it would be dangerous to make death out be strictly a consequence of the fall. Weird things happen to your perception of God when you lose someone you love and there are safer places to stand in those times.
@nobey1kanobey
Жыл бұрын
Its not deaths, but births. non-sequitur.
@lyricalmike7162
2 жыл бұрын
Jimmy is completely wrong about the consensus of the Fathers, ridiculously erroneous.
@AprendeMovimiento
2 жыл бұрын
The whole fight about "literal vs symbolic or metaphoric" makes no sense anymore. When we know the ways of categorizing the cosmos changes over time, the words change their meanings, everything we ever express is metaphorical in the sense that these lines that make up letters that make up words are simply pointing to something other than itself as lines on a screen, plus symbolic after the 1600s started to be equal to metaphorical, analogous and that signifies something other than itself when originaly symbol meant to throw things into unity... If we don't understand those thing these conversations become meaningless and pointless.
@AprendeMovimiento
2 жыл бұрын
@YAJUN YUAN in a traditional sense something is real because it is symbolic, the more things are "thrown into unity"(the traditional meaning of symbol) the more real they are to us. Aristotle speaks about reality as hylomorphic meaning that it's a composition (a unity of different aspects/symbol) between spirit and matter, act and potency, in an ancient categorization system we can speak of heaven and earth. The mysterious part is how is it that the union happens, but using the word literal doesn't make things better since the word "literal" simply means "as it is written" the meaning of literal and letters/writtings are directly linked. If the meaning of a word changes in time reading it "literaly" will end up being a mistake, for example the word "fish" for us means: a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins living wholly in water. But in the time of Jonah simply meant a creature of the sea, so reading it "literaly as a fish" with our categorization system ends up in a mistake since you can't be eaten by a fish in the modern sense and we have to change that to something like a whale to make it fit but what the Bible "literaly" says is fish and not whale. Those kinds of issues happen all the time with many more issues, words, stories and cosmology in general. What our Lord said is very simple because he expresses in many ways that that bread and wine are indeed his flesh and blood, thus we must understand that there is a union between the very being of Jesus Christ and that bread and wine, and if there are different aspects "thrown into unity" that unity becomes a symbol, it becomes real, thus the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and like I said traditionally understood things are real because they are symbolic, because they are hylomorphic, because they are a unity of different aspects.
@phil3924
2 жыл бұрын
When scientists are all saying the same thing and the Bible seems to say another, it is really difficult to go against the crowd. This isn't a salvation issue but is an issue of biblical authority. What if the Bible stood for a 6 day creation and every Bible scholar agreed but scientists all said the earth was older than that. Who would you believe? That's the real test. Don't compromise when you don't have to.
@michaelshelbyedwards
4 ай бұрын
But that’s not happening. The church clarifies what you are morally obligated to believe. Period.
@thomasjefferson6
4 ай бұрын
Truth in science is not determined by a vote, or by what scientists "believe". It is not possible to actually date the earth by science. All science can offer are speculations and theories, nothing more.
@hamptonblogger5048
9 ай бұрын
Jimmy, sorry, but you truly showed us your fruits, in that it's clear you trust the science, the opinion of man, over the Word of God. I'll pray for you, Jimmy.
@metalvarez1
2 жыл бұрын
Great show Matt, big fan of Jimmy Akin's mysterious world here. Matt or Jimmy would be possible for you to interview Stephen C. Meyer or Prof. Michael Behe ?
@Hamann9631
2 жыл бұрын
Jimmy seemed to be assuming evolution.
@jessehermann7266
2 жыл бұрын
Think how insane this sounds. "I just saw something that happened one hundred and eighty eight million years ago."
@jessehermann7266
Жыл бұрын
@@martyfromnebraska1045 None of us were alive when Jesus walked the earth, but we do have thousands of sources that prove he actually existed. There are no sources that prove something existed one hundred and eighty eight million years ago. Hence the insanity
@user-oq3jl1uz5v
5 ай бұрын
Gideon Lazar gives me hope for the future of the Catholic Church. I believe that he, the Church Fathers and the past popes will eventually be vindicated on this issue.
@christianbenedict4861
2 жыл бұрын
GREAT DEBATE
@coreygossman6243
2 жыл бұрын
1:21:00 "I don't agree with armchair theories without experimental evidence" Does Jimmy Akin believe that modern astronomy has experimental evidence? The have observational evidence, not experimental. His criticism of Gideons position cuts just as deeply for him trusting government funded astronomers.
@whatsinaname691
2 жыл бұрын
Bro, we do stuff in space. We do experiments, in space. Don’t go full “da guvment”. We all know that the young earth had far more historic power and if someone was suppressing the truth, then it would have been them in the 1800’s doing it.
@coreygossman6243
2 жыл бұрын
@@whatsinaname691 Who's we?
@whatsinaname691
2 жыл бұрын
@@coreygossman6243 My fellow physicists
@coreygossman6243
2 жыл бұрын
@@whatsinaname691 And they do experiments on stars to see what they are?
@whatsinaname691
2 жыл бұрын
@@coreygossman6243 Not exactly, but you’re on the right track. We’re working on doing that with the Sun though. Most of our data comes from an application of the General Relativity to fluctuations in the Cosmic Background Radiation. The WMAP satellite has used this information, the universe’s rate of expansion, and it’s composition to get an age of 13.77 billion years for our lovely universe, give or take 59 million years, but who’s counting?
@mikew8100
2 жыл бұрын
If Evolution as is taught today was absolutely definitively proven I would loose my faith for the reason that I can never theologically accept the idea that God is the author of death. The Bible is replete with the assertion that God did not make death and that death is the result of sin. The entire story of the salvation of Christ is built on this truth. If God did in fact create life by means of death, as is required by evolution, then God is the author of death and therefore does not deserve recognition for having saved us from his own creation. If there never was a paradise in the beginning like is written then what reason is there to believe in the paradise to come, which is written.
@malachi7948
2 жыл бұрын
You do not need philosophy at all, neither can you believe in Christ except by believing the prophet Moses who spoke of him what was revealed by God; “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words”
@st.mephisto8564
2 жыл бұрын
Why be a spiritual Infant? God can still be the author of Death and still use death as a means to transcend it. Example is the Cross, he dies on the cross and that death helps him transcend his mortal flesh and be raised in a spiritual flesh. I think a God that does not include death as a part of his creation is a God of little immature children and not adults.
@mikew8100
2 жыл бұрын
@@st.mephisto8564 Spiritual infant huh? "...God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they might exist...” - Wisdom 1:13-14 "Death is a consequence of sin. The Church’s Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin. Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin." Catechism 1008 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3 I'll take bing called a spiritual infant as a compliment, thanks.
@st.mephisto8564
2 жыл бұрын
@@mikew8100 Isaiah 45:7 says, “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” The Death the magisterium speaks of is not Physical but a spiritual death. The fallen flesh was never supposed to be immortal. "I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." -1 Corinthians 15:50 This life was always destined by God to end, so that a new spiritual resurrected life can be achieved
@mikew8100
2 жыл бұрын
@@st.mephisto8564 "“This has been decided by all the bishops […] gathered together in the holy Synod of Carthage: Whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal in the sense that he was to die a bodily death whether he sinned or not, which means that to quit the body would not be a punishment for sin but a necessity of nature, anathema sit” - Sixteenth Council, Synod of Carthage, 418AD "Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." 2 Timothy Whatever word salad you want to use to justify to yourself that God made death that's fine with me, but like I said in my original comment, it doesn't work for me and it never will. I can give you many more quotes showing the ancient Church and Tradition are unanimously on my side. You do you, but trust me you will never convince me, I'have studied this issue extensively for years.
@christopherus
2 жыл бұрын
Data, information, and interpretation are different. The Michelson-Morley experiment is a great example. I was going to use galactic redshift, but was composing this just as Gideon mentioned M-M. Datum: the form of the grating on the detector. Information: the grating does or does not show a shift. Interpretation: ? This is where we run into problems-where bias shapes science. If you believe that the Earth is moving through space, then M-M seems to show that light is not affected by the Earth moving through an ether. If you believe you have good reason to believe that light must be affected by motion of the source through an ether if it exists and observe no such predicted effect, then you conclude no ether exists. You then still maintain beliefs in three things: 1) that the earth is moving through space, 2) that if ether exists light must be affected by movement of the source through it, and 3) that you have good reason to believe 1 and 2. 1 and 2 might be supported by previous observations, but they likely also are shaped by prior beliefs (assumptions/premises). How far back do those assumptions go? What assumptions underly these prior conclusions? If you don’t assume the Earth’s motion through space, new possibilities are open to you. The lack of change in the pattern on the grating could mean that the Earth is stationary in space and stationary relative to an ether. Or, it might just be stationary in space and there’s no ether and light still behaves like Maxwell’s and Einstein’s work seems to indicate. How can we test it? Well, if Earth is stationary at the center of the universe and everything else revolves around it, and if there’s an ether and that ether affects light when the source travels through it, then the M-M experiment can be tried on or between spacecraft or on the moon. Then, what do we learn from the possible outcomes? And so on. See…this last approach opens up more possibilities. It doesn’t exclude any conclusions based on ideology, whereas the mainstream interpretation a priori excludes other possibilities and prevents one from pursuing other avenues of investigation. Which one is better science?
@orthobroslovemyplaylists6254
2 жыл бұрын
I think something old earth creationism has to contend with, particularly from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective, is the consensus of the Fathers being more in favour of young earth creationism. That is not insignificant.
@thstroyur
2 жыл бұрын
It also seems to be the case with the Tannaitic literature (i.e., the _earliest_ recorded Rabbinic teachings, around the time of Second Temple Judaism). I'm ready to change my mind on this topic, but the historical data seems to point very strongly to YEC, which is why I lean to it
@bwc1245
2 жыл бұрын
It’s easy to see where that leads. There was no reason for Church Fathers to read those 6000 years (back then) anyway else than just 6000 years. God probably intended a mythical text which can be read differently by different people in different times, but still with fundamental staying truths in it of course. But do you rly believe that humans only spoke one language in the time of babylon? It’s simply not the case
@account2871
2 жыл бұрын
The fathers could have given us a scientific treatise on YEC and it still would not matter. You do not understand these issues if you think we should be YEC just because the fathers may have been. The faculties of the human soul necessitate divine intervention, but as for material origin, any theory is just as valid as any other.
@CTdonnner1991
2 жыл бұрын
I think the issue is not that the Church Fathers believed it unanimously but moreso that there was not even a proponent for Old Universe instead, as noone cared enough or had enough informationto say otherwise at the time. I do fully believe the Fathers would have listened to a well put together Old Unviverse position because they did listen to others who said the world was a globe and not flat, and some fathers did believe in a round earth despite descriptions in the Bible.
@bwc1245
2 жыл бұрын
@creationist creationist I meant 6000 when the Fathers lived, approximately😐 And Okayy, so you just throw away all science?
@GavinLockard
2 жыл бұрын
People who don't care how old the earth is are clearly not seeing the full implications of pain, death, and cancer before the original sin. It would make God a monster. The Old and New Testaments are so clear that humanity brought physical death into the world, not the other way around.
@Arkangilos
2 жыл бұрын
The traditional Christmas proclamation *still prayed at prime for Christmas by those who pray the 1962 office,* starts, “in the 5199th year of the world”. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
@orthobroslovemyplaylists6254
2 жыл бұрын
In the Byzantine calendar it is currently the 7530th year from creation.
@Arkangilos
2 жыл бұрын
@@orthobroslovemyplaylists6254 The Byzantine stuff is legit. I wish we had one closer, I think my Islamic friend would feel more at home in a Byzantine Liturgy than a Latin one.
@martanieradka4675
2 жыл бұрын
Check out all old calendars in many other cultures!
@l21n18
2 жыл бұрын
That’s older than 6000 years
@Arkangilos
2 жыл бұрын
@@l21n18 5199 is when Christ was born. It’s older than 6000 now.
@DF_UniatePapist
10 ай бұрын
What I got from this debate: One side believes the Bible, the other believes atheists
@robertdean741
2 жыл бұрын
1 second ago Looks like Dr Robert Sungenis is posting a response to the debate with Lazar, should be available on his website in a couple of days, will be interesting to see his take on both sides of the argument!
@thesipesisrandom4534
Жыл бұрын
Trust the experts who despise everything about the Gospel...
@thomasjefferson6
4 ай бұрын
These are exactly the experts that Jimmy bows down to in arriving at his position on this mater.
@lquatt90
6 ай бұрын
Need to get Jimmy vs Hugh Owen on this.
@joseluis-kd8xh
2 жыл бұрын
Jimmy alluding to geo-centrism as false is rather curious. Contemporary Catholic Physic and Mathematician Wolfgang Smith has revived the geocentric cosmography in our days as a Biblical Truth. UPDATE: Lazar does mention Smith, he's very based. I believe I found a new favourite apologist.
@eg4848
2 жыл бұрын
You can always find smart people who argue against the grain on really dumb stuff. I think there was some crazy smart russian scientist who argued Jesus lived in the year 1000 or something
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
@@eg4848 I mean were it not for Einsteins... Let's just say creative paradigm of relativity. Michelson Morley could only be interpreted one way. The earth isn't moving. Einstein conceded that in his system the center didn't really matter. We could assign any center. In his framework. It truly doesn't. Still the current framework of cosmology today.
@VACatholic
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackdaw6359 not to mention airys failure and the cmb experiments exposing the "axis of evil".
@mcephas6982
2 жыл бұрын
Jimmy Akin will probably never debate Robert Sungenis on geocentrism. I think no one has so thoroughly dismantled the heliocentric view than Sungenis in "Galileo Was Wrong". Also "The Principle Movie" on KZitem shows how literally all the evidence they seem to come across shows the Copernican principle to be false, but modern scientists will bend over backwards to prop up their failed models.
@joseluis-kd8xh
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackdaw6359 Wolfgang Smith already acknowledges that, but he goes even further arguing that iconic truths as transcendent truths are superior ontologically and epistemologically than physical truths.
@joshanderson8566
Жыл бұрын
I wonder if Jimmy would skip the super nova example, since the James Webb telescope is throwing so much into question and proving other things just plain wrong.
@briandiehl9257
7 ай бұрын
That is a myth, JWTS is not throwing much into question
@joshanderson8566
7 ай бұрын
@@briandiehl9257 oh yes it is!!
@briandiehl9257
7 ай бұрын
@@joshanderson8566 most of those claims were directly fabricated
@dave1370
2 жыл бұрын
I agree with Gideon. If you keep trying to make your Theological views match up with current scientific consensus, which would be based on uniformitarian axioms excluding catastrophism, you will never actually have a solid View. Besides, I hardly think that this is not a Theological view as some are asserting, especially if the church fathers and the scripture thought to bring it up. If they thought it important enough to discuss, it is indeed an article of the faith in general. 200 years ago the view of the age of the Earth was far different than what the "scientific" consensus is today, and 200 years from now it will likely be different as well. But we are actually finding in many fields is an upending of evolutionary theory in many respects (genetic entropy, soft tissue, the waiting time problem, etc.) I mean, in the last year or two alone, astronomers have changed the age of the universe by some 2 billion years overnight. But to Gideon's point, there's a bigger problem if indeed Christ held to a literal Genesis. Christ cannot err. Yet he held that Adam and Eve were real, the account of Jonah was real, the Deluge was global (which Peter affirms, as well as the church fathers, etc. At what point did Genesis go from figurative to literal? I mean, certainly the entirety of Genesis is not simply metaphor, so what are the markers according to an Old Earther, and how would one know? Christ promise that we would look like fools to the world. We should make sure we are not attempting to capitulate to modernity for the sake of impressing a modern consensus which is simply an errant zeitgeist. God bless ✝️
@martanieradka4675
2 жыл бұрын
It’s incredible that Catholics believe Adam’s and Eve’s sin brought death onto creation and yet can justify somehow gap theory and dinosaurs dying long before humans….
@l21n18
2 жыл бұрын
Do you think though none can dismiss all observations? Simply saying it’s a matter of capitulating to the modern zeitgeist is a really lazy argument. It would be one thing if all scientists who held to an old earth and evolution were atheists, I’d be very suspicious then but that’s not the case at all.
@bethanyann1060
2 жыл бұрын
@@martanieradka4675 They would say the sin of Adam and Eve brought human death, not animal death.
@bethanyann1060
2 жыл бұрын
Dave I agree. While I can’t definitively say one way or the other what the truth is on this topic, I have to lean towards the traditional way the Church has understood this. It just really makes me uneasy how people can just dismiss the Scriptures’ more obvious meaning, and the way Jesus and the apostles seemed to interpret them. It just doesn’t sit well with me to say “well science says x, so Scripture must not mean what it says.”
@travisbicklepopsicle
2 жыл бұрын
You don't understand Mary Schweitzer's 'soft tissue' discovery. Maybe look into it a bit more. Schweitzer actually had to go public and do interviews explaining how young Earth creationists are constantly misrepresenting her work. It's very disrespectful :-(
@orthobroslovemyplaylists6254
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if Gideon, as an ex-orthodox, is influenced by Fr. Seraphim Rose (prolific young earth monk) in this regard.
@thebyzantinescotist7081
2 жыл бұрын
I have Fr. Seraphim’s book, but he was not a major influence. Kabane was a significant influence on me though. I remember reaching out to him with questions as a recent catechumen and he gave me excellent answers and resources.
@orthobroslovemyplaylists6254
2 жыл бұрын
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Kabane is excellent. And good job on the debate, btw!
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Do you think most theistic evolutionists claim that creation has ceased? If so, they must admit that any current lab and genetic evidence is evidence for naturalistic evolution and thus, the "God guided evolution is a thing of the past" Or if creation hasn't ceased that all supposed evolution is God driven so we can't truly distinguish between nature and grace
@christopherjohnson1873
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackdaw6359 Well at the very least, God continues creating souls when humans are conceived. So no, God hasn't fully stopped creating in an unqualified sense no matter what.
@Burberryharry
2 жыл бұрын
I just bought a book by seraphim rose, and I just bought the way of a pilgrim. ☦️✝️
@teresadinnie3110
2 жыл бұрын
Jimmy but I'd love to hear more from Gideon. Excellent points on both sides...great listening.
@YovanypadillaJr
2 жыл бұрын
Great debate. Now do Molinism vs Thomism on what better explains God's foreknowlegde.
@archiestewartjr.3588
10 ай бұрын
Way to go Gideon ❤
@christopherus
2 жыл бұрын
Vatican I On Faith and Reason (Canons) Canon 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge (science), a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
@TheK2008
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon did a good job. Most is all way over my head. Its good to ask questions. I know it's not the corner stone of my faith. But I can accept it either way. God created man. When I die hopefully I will have the answer.
@davidblasland8158
2 жыл бұрын
It was good to hear this debate. i don’t think anyone ‘won’ the debate as when two are seeking The Truth with good will, the winner is the one who wins over the other. The debate was interesting and perhaps a beginning. i do appreciate Jimmy Akin’s clear position regarding The Magisterium and it’s recent statements, yet i wholeheartedly disagree with his description, which Gideon for the most part conceded to. Papal statements to scientific bodies do not necessarily hold any Magisterial weight. There are various levels of Magisterial Statements which have varying levels of Doctrinal ‘weight’ to be held by the faithful. True Magisterial Statements do not lose weight over time, and so, if Jimmy would be intellectually rigorous he would acknowledge the long history of Magisterial Statements supporting The Traditional Doctrine of Creation, of which there are many, and they are of a greater weight than the recent ‘Magisterial’ Statements that he refers to in his argumentation. Gideon also seemingly missed an opportunity to expose the absolute avoidance by evolutionist to use Carbon 14 dating when dating the fossil record, as it shatters their false paradigm. When Jimmy answers the same question from the audience he uses the term radio metric dating, rather than carbon 14 dating as phrased in the question. Perhaps time would have been too short for him to expound on why he avoided addressing carbon 14 dating directly, as it would’ve taken the discussion down another ‘rabbit hole’ perhaps. Overall, very interesting!
@thomasjefferson6
4 ай бұрын
Carbon 14 cannot be used to date fossils. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock, to which radiometric dating methods cannot be directly applied.
@JeansiByxan
2 жыл бұрын
Why does Akin have such a smug tone of voice. Makes it very hard to listen to him.
@myrrhsolace5875
2 жыл бұрын
Gideon mistakenly refers toJimmy’s DNA argument as describing “junk DNA”. Junk DNA refers to DNA that seems to have no discernible purpose (though some recent studies suggest that at least some “junk” DNA allows for the environment to affect the genome); Jimmy was referring to DNA that is not “junk” - it has a known purpose, but that purpose (like making egg yolks, or a tail) is not currently used in building human physiology. The difference doesn’t affect the arguments made, but I think helps illustrate how difficult it is to grasp the nuances of a field of science, and how cautious one needs to be when evaluating scientific evidence one might not completely understand.
@l21n18
2 жыл бұрын
I think it’s a broader point about vestigial features in humans
@sliglusamelius8578
2 жыл бұрын
@@l21n18 I think the usual so-called vestigial structures are not vestigial, the have purpose and are helpful to organisms. We don’t have “tails” as embryos and we don’t have gill slits. Two examples.
@Davidjune1970
2 жыл бұрын
Junk dna is just a crude reference to genes we will never use. Yolk genes are never going to be used again by humans. So they are junk … no amount of offspring will ever result in an egg laying human. It’s not the same a blue eye genes which have a chance of being active in offspring.
@sliglusamelius8578
2 жыл бұрын
@@Davidjune1970 Junk dna refers to dna that doesn’t get transcribed and translated to make a protein. But it turns out to have epigenetic regulatory function, so it’s not “junk”. We do have yolk sacs as embryos. Our yolk sacs are for a different function, which I posted elsewhere, involved in forming blood and the GI tract.
@sliglusamelius8578
2 жыл бұрын
@@Davidjune1970 From the internet: “The yolk sac is lined by extra-embryonic endoderm and mesoderm. It was originally thought that the human yolk sac was a vestigial organ, no longer of use to the embryo, but research over the past decade or so has brought new insights to the use of the yolk sac by the embryo. Yolk Sac Functions The primary purpose of the yolk sac is to provide nourishment for the embryo at the earliest stages of development. This makes sense, because that is also the purpose of yolk sacs in other organisms, like the chicken eggs we originally talked about. The yolk sac is also responsible for the initial circulation and is in charge of delivering nutrients, via a primitive aorta, to the developing embryo through a process called vitelline circulation. The embryo usually develops a circulatory system by week 12, which is when the yolk sac ceases its own circulatory functions.”
@thesipesisrandom4534
Жыл бұрын
The "distance proves time" is ridiculous.
@j.davidsapp6212
9 ай бұрын
I'm surprised Genesis 1:14 isn't referenced more frequently in questions about why we can see stars that are so far away. The Scripture indicates not only the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars, but also the creation of "lights in the heavens." That is, a portion of God's creative act was creating those heavenly bodies, but it also included God's creating the light between them and the world we know that makes those heavenly bodies visible to us. Thus, arguments favoring an old Earth viewpoint based on the time needed for light to get here from hundreds of lightyears away ought not present any problems to one holding a young Earth viewpoint.
@thomasjefferson6
4 ай бұрын
Check out astrophysicist Jason Lyle's book The Physics of Einstein regarding the "problem" of distant starlight.
@mcephas6982
2 жыл бұрын
Matt, you should try and get Jimmy, or another Catholic, to debate Robert Sungenis on geocentrism. Now THAT would be an interesting debate.
@MNskins11
2 жыл бұрын
YES!!!!!!
@illyb514
2 жыл бұрын
Yes! Do it!!!
@michaelspeyrer1264
2 жыл бұрын
No it wouldn’t.
@mcephas6982
2 жыл бұрын
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Afraid of what would happen? ; ]
@mythologicalmyth
2 жыл бұрын
WLC would poop his pants.
@syfkog5236
Жыл бұрын
Magisterium affirms six day Creation: "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam, when he was locked in sleep." - Pope Leo XIII encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientae par. 5
@user-kc9if7lu9x
8 ай бұрын
Good point! I guess, Jimmy would say: "But, but, but... what about Pius XII's and JP2's 'enthusiasm' for the opposite view?" And what about Jimmy's own enthusiasm for science and the majority opinion of the "experts'? Those things ought to be worth something, Leo's statement notwithstanding. 😅
@joshuakoehn3629
Жыл бұрын
Evolution requires death to work. Scripture clearly states that Death came with Sin through Adam, and all creation was subjected. (Romans 5:12; 8:19-20) Therefore Evolution cannot precede Adam unless Scripture or Evolution as a theory is disregarded. Which side does truth flow over this watershed?
@bellottibellotti9185
Жыл бұрын
Randomly arranging 3.2 billion base pairs and crating a human being is less likely than drawing the the ace o clubs one billion times in a row
@anthonypuccetti8779
2 жыл бұрын
The 4th Lateran council said that God created all things out of nothing, at once and by his own power. That rules out a natural or gradual process of creation. And the proclamation of the birth of Christ in the Christmas Eve mass says, in its original version, that Christ was born 5199 years after the creation of the world. Those are reasons enough to reject the evolutionary view.
@anthonypuccetti8779
Жыл бұрын
@@martyfromnebraska1045 "Guess that means..." No, it means God created all corporeal and spiritual creatures by his own power, at once and out of nothing. "this is referring to the contingent universe." The council didn't speak of a contingent universe.
@c.kevincrow2115
2 жыл бұрын
@The Byzantine Scotist : I thought the conflict with hylomorphism / essentialism was the most interesting point you raised (I read Oderberg, Feser, Ripperger, and manualists like Cronin) - and was disappointed the next question came before he could respond. FWIW I superchatted Brett Weinstein once regarding clarification of a comment he made about purpose (teleology) in biology, which he and Heather were discussing - his response was that in biology and engineering, one must treat purpose as being present. I suppose he'd say whatever an AT philosopher would formulate as an essence with final cause is selfish-gene reducible, but still find the 'must' needing explanation (required by our cognitive architecture?). As you point out, though, scientists lack (and generally don't see the value of) philosophical education. Whatever the case, thanks for the interesting content. On the off chance you're not aware: Sabine Hossenfelder criticizing dark matter and the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is good (her impious music isn't, although she has praised religious scientists for having a clearer view of the distinction between physics and metaphysics); Eric Weinstein on Breedlove's podcast (ep 6 or 7 of 7) deals with quantum mechanics / quantum field theory (although he's a high-dimensionalist); and Feser did a very interesting lecture on physics.
@adamcalvaneso9624
2 жыл бұрын
I love the debate and how well it was organized. I also love how they were both respectful and respected not going down rabbit holes. With this being said, Jimmy totally won this debate. I really think Gideon didn't address Jimmy's points properly but I think Gideon did a good job provoking additional thought on the topics.
@Hesperell
2 жыл бұрын
Coming into the debate right now--my top worry, as an old-Earth guy and evolution believer, is that I will be effectively redpilled to a Young Earth position and once again forced by intellectual honesty further to marginalize myself from a more comfortable moderate position like the one Akin more often inhabits (I say this not to make any statements about the interlocutors, whose arguments I haven't yet heard). The reason why I say this now is that I think I need to pause and think about the fact I have these misgivings. I have experienced something similar often in the past: I learn something and/or am convinced by an effective argument that leads me to have to accept a position further from the mainstream in our society, and in my weakness sometimes crave the ability to agree with more people. I often see people who look like extremists and find, to my chagrin, that I agree and even sympathize with them. And I look at others who are often more successful and who often pride themselves on being reasonable, nuanced, and not extremists "on either side" and start to feel a little resentment because their arguments are often not quite as tight and more often consist of variations of "come on, man, you can't really believe that! Only crackpots believe that!" And these people tend to be more likeable, more respectable, etc... Then I read the Gospel and remember that Jesus was not the respectable-looking mainstream guy, but an extremist who said people would hate us for His sake. Here goes.
@stefanielozinski
2 жыл бұрын
I totally relate to this. I'm comfortable now being a young earth creationist, but it was definitely not something I thought I'd end up believing when I first became Catholic. "Catholics believe in evolution! It's only those Bible-thumping protestants who believe in a literal reading of Genesis!" is basically what I used to think. I do agree with Gideon that you don't *have* to take my position to be a good Catholic, but I believe it's the most *fitting* belief about origins. God bless you wherever you end up.
@Hesperell
2 жыл бұрын
And it seems what I feared is comin about (and I wish Akin sees this but highly doubt this will get to him). I found Lazar much, much more convincing, despite agreeing with Akin beforehand, because *Akin throughout fundamentally fails to take critical arguments from Lazar seriously.* It really seems that Akin highly underestimated his young-Earth opposition, likely expecting a kind of Evangelical stereotype and spending the overwhelming majority of his time on scientific questions that presuppose an Enlightenment empiricist epistemology. The problem here is that Catholic YECs often begin from faith and, when arguing from reason, begin with metaphysics. To Jimmy, it seems there are two realms of truth: Faith--which just amounts to narrow Magisterial definitions--and Reason--which just amounts to modern natural science. If the Church does not define as dogma something that pertains to Creation, then we immediately go to secular scientists. But this implicitly excludes that there could remain an authority to Scripture and the consensus of the fathers that presents a serious warrant of faith greater than the warrant of Enlightenment empiricism, or that reason might dictate we approach this question at its metaphysical foundations before immediately going into empirical natural science, in order to avoid problems like the one presented by macroevolution's failure to distinguish substance and accident. Secular scientists, meanwhile, operate under often unexamined metaphysical foundations. And finally, when Akin punted on the Transfiguration of the entire universe (he said idk, which may be misplaced humility, but if we're being real, really appears to be avoiding the question) I feel that really damaged his credibility as a person who takes the claims of the Catholic faith seriously enough to place it before empirical science if they did conflict. As I heard Akin argue, he sounded like an atheist. He seems to place God in a box--a box that doesn't reach to the Andromeda galaxy. It implies there is something in the universe outside of God's sovereignty, and while it is technically true God in His Providence could decide only to transfigure part of the universe, this does not seem fitting at all with the nature of God, and fittingness has traditionally been a serious consideration in theology. In other words, Akin seems kind of like a minimalist, making the Catholic faith as small as it can possibly be, making it fit as comfortably as it can in our secular culture, and defining the least amount of supernatural stuff that a Catholic might (regrettably) have to believe. Again, *this comment is coming from someone who still leans toward an old Earth and theistic evolution* (though perhaps not as much as before, and not just because of the strength of Lazar's arguments but because of Akin's failure to contend with them on their own terms). And as an aside, I do highly respect what some Dominicans are doing with theistic evolutionary speculation, most especially because it moves beyond "what are we allowed to believe as Catholics?" and the tendency to think that since we're allowed to believe in evolution, we should just go to the local natural history museum and let Science teach us. Instead, the Dominicans actually grapple with actively moving the dialogue forward in thinking about how God created through evolution and how that and our understanding of Scripture can mutually enrich each other.
@stefanielozinski
2 жыл бұрын
@@Hesperell Gideon really did do a fantastic job in this debate, which probably didn't help you any! Just to make a quick point, I actually think a lot of young earth believers in the Catholic Church still kind of poo-poo evangelicals who focus on it because they are imperfect in their understanding of philosophy and theology and that at times bleeds into their science. I can agree with that to an extent, BUT I am very thankful to Protestants who have done a great deal to keep this ancient Christian belief alive (the Catholic Church has obviously never abandoned the possibility of young earth creation doctrinally, but it is impossible to deny that in practice it is almost exclusively protestants who were defending the position until very, very recently). I shudder to think how many conservative protestants would just assume Catholics *must* believe in evolution and therefore discount Catholicism as an option for conversion. Anyway, that massive aside...aside, I agree completely that this is a big issue I have with Jimmy's position here. It's like a strange sort of "God of the gaps" where we default to naturalism unless supernatural explanations are explicitly presented by the Church, at least in matters touching the sciences. I've always said that I'm way too much of a dummy on philosophy to get into some of this stuff (true, unfortunately), but I was pretty mindblown when Gideon mentioned that evolution / secular scientists misunderstand the distinction between substance and accidents. I had never thought of it in those terms before, but it really troubles me now and I can't "unsee" how that's problematic. I don't necessarily think a paleontologist needs a PhD in philosophy to do good research, but is it too much toask that they at least have a basic metaphysical foundation? Again, I say this as someone who basically just keels over when someone starts getting into a debate about the essence energies distinction or whatever... Jimmy's comment about the Transfiguration re: the entire universe was kind of troubling too, though I would like to hear him clarify it a little more. At a gut level, it reminds me of why I believe evolution and an old earth is so dangerous to faith for so many people. I know some say that God creating this impossibly large universe that's a gazillion bajillion years old is fitting because it's mirroring his glory or whatever, but I don't know. Is it childish to say it just makes me feel insignificant and worthless? The same reason I think aliens are demons and leave it at that. I just do not buy that God created this impossibly BIG THING and we're this little pointless speck... but really it's all about us and he came to save us??? I find it strikes a bad note. Doesn't mean I'm right, but hey. I haven't looked too much into this Dominican content, perhaps I should. When I first started questioning evolution, I saw some crazy in depth article (I can't remember where but part of me is thinking it was Dominican in some fashion, this was years ago) trying to explain Adam and Eve and evolution without explicitly going into (condemned) polygenism.. and it just struck me as so full of reaches that I was just like... can I just believe the Bible? Am I ALLOWED to? So, sure, Pius XII allows that sort of grappling and I think it's worth doing, but I also think it doesn't make me a "dumb prot" to just take the Bible at its word when the Fathers clearly did AND the position is not later condemned. That may be a me thing, though. and now that I've learned more about the creation side of the science (and a little more about Catholic philosophy) I would like to revisit the issue.
@chaunceyhart1346
2 жыл бұрын
@@Hesperell This, and your original comment are beautifully said. You articulated almost exactly what I was thinking. We should never want to be minimalist with our Catholic Faith and I also couldn’t help but think that Akin sounded like an Atheist.
@vinciblegaming6817
11 ай бұрын
I’m commenting on this because it is so beautiful and thorough and I want to be able to reference it. Thank you for taking so much time to write these comments.
@matthewsweeting988
2 жыл бұрын
I think Gideon did pretty well against Comic Book Guy.
@tgamerkle
2 жыл бұрын
Anyone interested in this topic should read Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.
@AndrewofVirginia
2 жыл бұрын
Someone needs to tell jimmy to stop advertising his own show in the middle of debates. It looks a little self-absorbed and unprofessional. Don't mean to be rude, jimmy, just saying.
@bohemiantheologian
Жыл бұрын
Don't think he is making much cash. It's OK.
@GraeOne_
2 жыл бұрын
I love these kind of debates. It's not about who is right or wrong it's about finding the truth.
@hopefulforhumanity5625
Жыл бұрын
I was worried for Gideon. Jimmy has so much experience debating, and he loves science. But Gideon really impressed me. I think Jimmy is right but I'm not totally convinced. Gideon came very prepared.Jimmy is always prepared.
@JohnPopeII
2 жыл бұрын
Wonderful debate, Matt! Thanks for hosting it. It's important to hear both sides of the creation question. Jimmy is quite polished in his debate technique, no doubt. But, I think Gideon is on the right side of this issue. I hope you continue to bring this creation debate up for discussion. So much more to be said! Gideon broke the ice. Now, invite YEC scientists, Hugh Owens, Fr. Ripperger, folks from the Discovery Institute, etc. to further flesh out the science, philosophy and theology on the whole matter. So fruitful, and good! 😇
@thomasjefferson6
4 ай бұрын
The YEC people have been almost totally ignored, and have virtually no access to funding to do research. The same is true of the ID people.
@cb885
Жыл бұрын
This Jmmy Akin is hailed in this channel, but he doesn't seem to be anyything special.
@interceptus
2 жыл бұрын
Jimmy JPII's address speaking to a group of science folk (and not the universal church) and a vague statement in the changeable catechism is a weak position.
@cookrileyw
Жыл бұрын
As a Catholic physicist, I can say very much that there is a great body of evidence for a global flood.
@t.d6379
Жыл бұрын
You're lying, no there isn't. Go ahead...
@Krehfish534
11 ай бұрын
And what about being a physicist makes you qualified to discuss matters of history and geology? Or how about instead we actually present our data instead of saying "I'm an authority, trust me?"
@travisbicklepopsicle
11 ай бұрын
What does being a Catholic, or a physicist, have to do with anything you've said? 'Great body of evidence' supporting a global flood? There is *no* scientific evidence supporting a global flood. None. And a vast body of evidence against that particular *belief* Thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed papers and articles have been published in science journals relevant to geology; not a single one demonstrates a global flood occurred. If you really are a scientist, you should be ashamed of yourself. Wow.:-( 'Global flood' is part of a religious belief system. It is not relevant to science in any way. Edit: as a 'physicist', you aren't familiar with the heat problem concerning the global flood?
@nicholasstephens1349
11 ай бұрын
That’s great let’s have the evidence. Evidence for a global flood would not prove that the Earth is young though.
@timboslice980
10 ай бұрын
Randall Carlson talks about a major flood catastrophe that happened at the end of the ice age. It's some crazy evidence.... he has his own podcast and lots of content on joe rogan. That being said.... he never proposes that it was a total global flood. In fact he points out all the mega fauna that survived from that time in Africa.
@Bogey-man73
2 жыл бұрын
What scares me, is that more educated men like Jimmy and others in my faith seem to continually say certain passages aren't to be taken as literally as I've been led to believe. For example the Peter verses that Gideon brought up. I'm not disagreeing with Jimmy, I'm just feeling like I now need a huge study Bible that explains to me the "Interpretation" of each scripture. Meditating on this further, I know there are these types of scriptures throughout the Bible, which only will bringing me greater confusion... I now feel like I know nothing. Except Jesus is Lord 🙏
@whatsinaname691
2 жыл бұрын
The disciples couldn’t understand Jesus’s words when he spoke to them directly. We should expect the greatest book ever written to be irreducible in its complexity for the plurality of its teachings, yet still understandable to some degree through dedication, contemplation, and prayer, hence why biblical studies exists
@-GodIsMyJudge-
Жыл бұрын
This is exactly why the magisterium was so cautious, and they were right to be, modern education on science has probably been the single greatest factor in causing people to doubt their faith, Church teaching, Holy scriptures, abandon their faith altogether, or conversely preventing people from ever taking the Bible/Christian faith seriously - leading many to attack and mock the faith of believers in seeking to 'de-convert' them. (I should elaborate further but I'm out of time for now)
@MrSggurcs
5 ай бұрын
I get this feeling too and it's starting to worry me as well too Catholicism and Catholic apologetics has a really weird entrench need to be aligned with the science as a priority over actual scripture or teaching from the fathers play it bothers me there's no skepticism played towards science especially after covid.
@easternRomanOrthodox
5 ай бұрын
Because both you & Akin are the biggest heretics of our time. You know you're in trouble when pagan evangelicals look more Catholics than yourselves🤦😁
@thomasjefferson6
4 ай бұрын
What should scare anyone is that "more educated men like Jimmy and others" continually say that certain passages aren't to be taken as literally as the Apostles and Christ Himself believed. Is that not what Modernism is all about?
@jjpom9538
Жыл бұрын
Wow. I thought both speakers were well prepared to respond to each other. Maybe more questions developed in my mind than perhaps were answered, but I suppose these sorts of topics tend to do that. 😊
@enslavedbytruth
2 жыл бұрын
The History of Chronology should be addressed
@jackdaw6359
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah the history would he a great discussion. As we see the church gradually keeping quiet and the pop opinion of her enemies becoming the popular opinion of the laity.
@joelmontero9439
2 жыл бұрын
I've become more and more convinced of creationism against the theory of evolution from some time ago, and I actually really like Young Earth Creationism more than Old Earth, it makes more sense of scripture and the symbolism in it, also the consensus of the fathers and tradition is a huge point for YEC I love Jimmy, and Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is the best podcast out there, and Gideon is just a really smart guy and his channel is maybe the best Catholic channel on KZitem God bless you all and ¡Viva Cristo Rey!
@troelsvestergaard6644
2 жыл бұрын
What convinced you that the scientific consensus is wrong?
@joelmontero9439
2 жыл бұрын
@@troelsvestergaard6644 I'm sorry English is not my first language so I don't think I could answer your that question fully😂, but the philosophical arguments against evolution are really persuasive to me, you could watch Father Ripperger's videos against Evolution for example, also creationism is an easier way to read Scripture and that's a huge point in favor for creationism, and lastly I've become more and more convinced that the theory of evolution degrades the human person and is behind a lot of modern thinking
@troelsvestergaard6644
2 жыл бұрын
@@joelmontero9439 Evolution is a fact. Read real sources. Not thirst sources if you want to learn about evolution.
@Mr._Anderpson
2 жыл бұрын
That's the poison pill ideology offers. You get to know everything, without actually knowing anything. If an idea appears that you don't like, you can have Galileo locked away for the rest of his days.
@williambillycraig1057
2 жыл бұрын
@@troelsvestergaard6644 Hey Joel, what are thirst sources? Also, what would be a good book to read in this area? Lastly, do you have any recommendations on books where ID and evolution are looked at reasonably from each side? Thank you
@ericmayhew5494
Жыл бұрын
Has Jimmy ever thought God can do what He wants?
@aletheiaquest
2 жыл бұрын
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought during the cross examination time, one person asks a question and then listens without interjecting unless the responder is getting off track. I understood this time to not allow the question to be responding, but simply questioning.
@jep6752
6 ай бұрын
Congrats Gideon 🎉 You successfully took on a published apologist with 30+ years of experience with debating. And Jimmy's argument of defining "world" as a geographical region because of the "Roman world" was weak.
@minisinthehallshorts
2 жыл бұрын
The constant use of the Magisterium was a cop out, the Pope making statements when addressing an audience are not infallible. The Magisterium must always agree with Tradition of which part is the Church Fathers and also Sacred Scripture. The fact that modern bible scholarship which is not catholic has found its way into the Church watering down the Bible is sad. The Resurrection of Christ which modern Science would say is impossible did happen as well as all the miracles of the Bible (which we have no scientific explanation)so goes the creation story. We take the Resurrection account to be true the same with the Creation account, why is it so hard God can do a billion years of work in a minute. So yes I believe God created everything in a week and yes I believe it takes a billion year for star light to reach earth, but how you may ask? In the Beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth it was a MIRACLE. Also all evolution theory is just that a theory promoted by atheist raging war on God, we need to be careful declaring it a truth. PAX
@ForgedinPrint
2 жыл бұрын
You know Darwin, the guy who discovered evolution, did believe right? Yes he didn't go to church but that was mostly for disagreements with the church.
@minisinthehallshorts
2 жыл бұрын
@@ForgedinPrint I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic quote by Charles Darwin, By the way evolution was never discovered its a theory.....
@ForgedinPrint
2 жыл бұрын
@@minisinthehallshorts a theory in society's use is vastly different from a theory in science. A science theory has proven itself time and time again to have some level of merit backed by repeated attempts to falsify it and passing every falsification test. A social "theory" is actually just a scientific hypothesis. Theories and laws dont become each other.
@minisinthehallshorts
2 жыл бұрын
@@ForgedinPrint No it hasnt! no missing links sorry I dont buy it, sorry if you want to believe it you can its up to you in the end if you are a follower of Christ you will see it does not jive with original sin and the first Adam ....... Fossil record has distinct forms no transitional can but will not go down that rabbit hole PAX God bless
@ForgedinPrint
2 жыл бұрын
@@minisinthehallshorts it's moments like this where it's obvious you follow a script. My last comment literally had nothing to do with anything other than clarifying what a theory was, and yet you go straight to this "missing link" bs. First off, missing links don't actually exist, it's just a mischaracterization of evolution. The "link" thing implies stages, which any "stages" made is just humans attempting to bring order to a chaotic system. To make an analogy for evolution it's like adding water to a puddle, at what point does it change into a lake? Secondly, for seeing evidence of us being cousins to apes we have so, so many fossils that showcase, for lack of a better term, human ape hybrids. We also have genetics showing just how similar we are to apes, with features that is extremely rare outside monkeys and apes have being present with us as well (ability to see red is one). Thirdly apes are also one of the very few that actually go to war with their own species, we taught monkeys the value of money (first thing they did with it was brothel related stuff) and the bonobo apes are actually developing their own spears and shovels without human intervention. My point with the last one being that apes/monkeys are doing things that we often attribute to just humans.
@BornAgainRN
2 жыл бұрын
"In the beginning [ἀρχῆς] God created the heavens and the earth" (LXX Genesis 1:1) ""But from the beginning [ἀρχῆς] of creation, God made them male & female" (Mark 10:6) The same Greek word translated "beginning" [ἀρχῆς] used in LXX Genesis 1:1 to describe when God created BOTH the heavens & the earth is later used in the Greek NT of Mark 10:6 where Jesus states WHEN Adam & Eve were created. IOW, they were created in the same time period when God created BOTH the earth AND the rest of the universe - meaning a literal 6 day creation period, beginning with a literal "day 1" when God created the universe, the earth, & light (not the sun), and on a literal "day 6" when God created Adam & Eve ALL "in the beginning" [ἀρχῆς]. I have about 30 minutes left of the debate to watch. In Gideon's opening statement, he balanced evidence from Scripture, the unanimous testimony of ECFs, & what can be demonstrated from testable empirical science, yet made sure to give God-breathed Scripture as the ultimate authority & testimony. In Jimmy's opening statement, he offered NO evidence from Scripture, and relied throughout the debate mostly from the non-falsifiable authority of the Magisterium. Although Jimmy attempted to use scientific arguments during the debate, he didn't discern between what is falsifiable & testable vs what is assumed (ie: "historical" science) like a nova exploding "188 million years ago." He assumed uniformitarianism, which is a presupposition that cannot be tested objectively, & dismissed Creation Science explanations. Yet, Jimmy has no problem with Jesus miraculously rising from the death, despite that violating scientific principles. Very little of his argumentation was from Scripture itself, but on scientific theories shared by atheistic evolutionary "scientists" which should cause some concern. The fact that the Magisterium has not "infallibly" interpreted these verses in the Bible, including 2 Peter, that discuss the Flood, whether it to be local or global, is equally problematic, since the OT is clear that it was global. Jimmy is also taking liberty with the word "world" that Peter uses, rather than discern from the OT that Peter is referring to the globe, not other uses of the word. I also find it ironic that someone who has written a book titled, "The Fathers Know Best," completely dismissed the unanimous consensus of Fathers who ALL espoused to a young earth, for the PRESENT self-professed authority of the Magisterium, which - during the debate - Jimmy even admitted the Magisterium's view CAN CHANGE, which it currently pushes for an old earth. But this is problematic, since if the Magisterium is supposed to date back to the time of Jesus, shouldn't the current Magisterium KNOW whether the earth is young or old, or if the Flood was local or global? And if it were local, why couldn't Noah have simply moved his family & the animals to a different location, since he had 120 years to do so, rather than building an ark? And if the Magisterium can change, then it is not infallible & does not come from God like Scripture does. After listening to the majority of the debate, Gideon won hands down. Jimmy is a smooth & intelligent speaker. But being smooth & intelligent does not determine if a debater right, but rather if their arguments are valid. And the hypothesis proposed by Jimmy that "could" have been a pre-Adamic race that predates Adam & Eve, who were the first ones with "souls," grossly contradicts Adam & Eve being created "in the beginning" when God created the rest of the universe. Hands down, Gideon's argumentation were superior & much more balanced, while Jimmy's were mostly "just trust in the authority of the Magisterium"...which, BTW, does not know, despite claiming to be the same Church of Rome that the apostle Paul wrote to in the mid-first century, who would have known if the earth was young or old & if the Flood were local or global.
@drkissinger1
2 жыл бұрын
The use of the same word “arkhe” to describe a time does not necessarily mean they refer to the same time.
@sacamedeaca
9 ай бұрын
Lately I have come to the theological question. Evolution means assuming many intermediate beings whose updates based on environments and conditions demonstrates a complete loss of efficiency and order in creation. God does not create unnecessary things. Evolution also involves a constant struggle of species for superiority. Which is totally contrary to what we experience. Each animal or plant or mineral has its role in the eco system. They exist by being in a properly adjusted and very presumably stable environment. It would be chaotic and would take a long time to stabilize. By the way time is the argument that evolutionists like the most because it is something that cannot be tested or reproduced in a laboratory. There are many more philosophical and theological arguments that lead me to think that the earth is a few thousand years old and that evolution is the basis for anti-Christian ideologies.
Пікірлер: 2 М.