St. Georges dragon was added to the story much later (medieval times) St. George was a Roman soldier who refused to deny Christ and his faith and was martyred for it. I was always taught the dragon represented Satan and his lies.
Dragons, serpents, and snakes are generally an analogy for evil amongst Christianity. St Patrick, he who converted Ireland from paganism, is referred to have "driven snakes out of Ireland". Ireland doesn't have snakes, so it makes a perfect analogy, where "snakes" refers to paganism, and that became the folklore. Similarly, St George managed to stop a sacrificial pagan cult, and convert the people to Christianity. A dragon is a perfect analogy for that - a serpent like creature that feeds on the people. The tradition to depict St George as a literal dragon slayer in icons came later. But this is a perfect depiction! It concisely shows St George ending a dangerous sacrificial paganism in very few details (simply depicting paganism/evil as a well known at the time and even to this day analogy: a dragon, dragons being more dangerous than a snake represents the sacrifice, and the woman St George saves in the icon from the dragon, represents the woman saved from being sacrificed according to tradition), whilst also showing the association of St George as a warrior saint, by showing him in such light defeating the serpent. His bravery shown when defeating the dragon being analogous to his usual bravery as a warrior saint. This was a perfect depiction, especially beginning from a culture where warrior figures a prevalent (Illiad and Odessy, Hercules, etc). In addition, because this is a well established trope allusion (a brave hero, called to a courageous task, enemy/serpent/witch defeated), placing a Christian historical figure in such allusion immediately makes people who may not know who St George is, but look at the icon for the first time, they immediately know what kind of person he is. The dragon is an obvious analogy to evil, but this depiction is an illusion to previous heroes, and what St George was like immediately from looking at a well established analogy. I had a modern example in mind, but I can't quite recall it. The closest modern equivalent I can think of right now, is how adding sunglasses to a picture of an existing person makes anyone who looks at the image of the person, that he is "cool", "awesome", or "bada**". These are icons and traditions with very deep 'lore' (out of lack of better wording), many details and history which are very interesting to study, and you can learn so much about St George. But sadly, some people choose to not go that path, and fail to learn the truth. I say this a lot: Christianity's greatest enemies from within are extreme fundamentalists and extreme progressives/liberals. Both forget that the Bible is a collection of historical narratives, eyewitness accounts, poems, proses, allegories, moral codes, and more. It should not be read the same through out like a fiction book, because it isn't.
Leviathan and the dragon symbolize chaos that is then subdued and a rule of order is placed over it. I love God’s opening to Job - HE created the leviathan… and Genesis 1:1 begins with chaos and God subduing it. That chaos was created by God, too.
@@cerebrummaximus3762 Dragons, serpents & snakes are not just symbol of evil. They have quite complex symbolism. Related i.e. to both good & evil angels. And also chaos. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting." ~ John 3:14-15. "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves." ~ Matthew 10:16.
Calling Beowulf "historical" would be to read LOTR five hundred years later and think Balrogs are real. (Give credit to our ancestors for being just as, if not more creative and imagitive than ourselves.)
In college (dare I say it - 50 years ago!) I read “Beowulf” in a modern translation, as well as portions in the original Old English. It never occurred to me (or to the professor, for that matter) that the text was describing a battle between a human being and a dinosaur. The professor, I know, is still alive. Should I contact him and tell him the news? 😮
@@NGAOPC William Golding, best known for “Lord of the Flies,” wrote a novel called “The Inheritors,” which depicts the very conflict you’re talking about. It can be rather hard to follow in places because the action is told from the point of view of the Neanderthals, who, because of their “lower” intelligence, don’t understand much of what they’re confronting.
@@n4ughty_knight Zorro didn't respond. Do you know if TM made a video after Trent's one, or hasn't? I already know he had made one, but I was not interested to listen to it. PS: Btw., of course you gotta have some hope, whatever hope you can get...
@@GMurph2336 You can if you like, but I don’t. We should be open to the different genres of Scripture. The Church Fathers like Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine all ready Genesis differently than what modern fundamentalists insist is the only possible reading. If you look at the literal story of Genesis it’s very different from how we interpret according to our tradition. The serpent is nowhere called or implied to be the devil. God lies to them and tells them they’ll die then they eat the fruit, it’s our tradition that reinterprets it as spiritual death. God can’t find Adam hiding behind a tree. God complains to the other gods about how scared he is now that the humans have eaten the magical fruit. The literal account of Genesis is utterly foreign to our faith. Original sin, the temptation of the Devil, these are all things we read from our tradition of interpretation and not form the text. And that’s okay. I believe in the spiritual interpretation not the literal story on the page. That’s a good thing. Some of the Church Fathers talk about how the Bible is a harp but the Holy Spirit comes and plays the harp. Inspiration is not confined to the page but must take form in the Community that these Scriptures were delivered to. It is the Holy Spirit who guides us into knowing the Truth.
@@GMurph2336 We are but the RC church does not follow the Bible (yes, they will argue they do ) but mocking the idea of biblical creationism (aka YEC) is a huge problem for Roman Catholics who firmly believe that Peter was the first Pope; the one entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of God. Many Catholics mock the view that the earth could be young and are embarrassed that anyone could believe that this is true. Well, St. Peter did! Peter clearly believed that the flood of Noah was real. He wrote, "After being made alive, he (Jesus) went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits- to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water…" 1 Peter 3: 19-20 NIV (also 2 Peter 2:5) More importantly, Peter warned that in the last days scoffers would come. What would they be scoffing? "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." 2 Peter 3:3-7. They were not scoffing at the resurrection of Christ (as many do today), or at Christ's death (as Islam does), instead they were scoffing the idea that the world was formed out of water and was deluged by water (covered in water twice), exactly as the opening chapters of Genesis state. Yet many Roman Catholics scoff at this and so they are in effect scoffing at St. Peter and the word of God.
Former Protestant, convert to Catholicism here, raised YEC and still trying to figure it all out. I really like Trent’s videos (and have been looking forward to his promised videos on Kolbe Creation Center for a while), but I have to confess, I’m a bit disappointed with this one; particularly the part about the Paluxty River prints. My parents took us to Glen Rose when I was a kid, and this “specimen” is a big deal to a lot of YECers, and, let’s be honest, if it was real, it should be a big deal. So to wrap up that part with a “scientist have decided that it’s just erosion” and move on, without any links to study’s or references, feels a bit simplistic and dismissive, especially if you were raised to be suspicious of most of the scientific community, raised as we were with tales of the canceling of scientists who questioned the evolutionary dogma, long before canceling became a culture-wide phenomena. I know debunking that particular argument was not the sole purpose of this video, but a link to a study or mention of a source would have much better than to just dismiss it and move on. Especially since something that looks so clearly like a human footprint could not possibly be attributed to simple erosion. Turns out, it wasn’t erosion, it was most likely a carved hoax. I went looking for myself, and found this excellent study and breakdown of all the supposed prints attributes that indicate strongly that it was carved. Looking closely at it with their observations have convinced me, after all, that it is, in fact, a hoax. I confess myself disappointed and kinda sad to learn that… but also relieved to have an actual answer, and one that isn’t flippant, dismissive, condescending, or disrespectful. Anyway, here’s the link for those interested: paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm Incidentally, I am one of those (usually) silent readers who is really struggling to ascertain the truth in this area, and am open to what I was raised to believe being wrong… but the absolute nastiness and pettiness that I see in the comments on this video (and elsewhere in the whole evolution/creationist debate) are a HUGE deterrent to hearing what you all have to say. (I acknowledge that both sides are guilty of this.) A large percentage of the comments under this video are derisive, nasty, scornful and mocking, and all the unnecessary comments about Taylor Marshall and the other fellow are equally off-putting. I am not a particular Taylor Marshall fan myself, but the comments about him that have nothing to do with the subject of the video, are also a huge turn-off for someone like me who is honestly trying to weigh all of this and find the truth. The presentation matters as much as the content. Just keep that in mind.
I'd just like to say it's so wonderful and refreshing to see a comment that's so open minded and, for lack of a better term, reasonable. I'd personally recommend you look into the work of Jonathan Pageau, and his brother Matthew Pageau's book "The Language of Creation" for an interesting take on the cosmology and symbolism in Genesis.
I really appreciate everything you had to say and also the way you have balanced the ease with which it APPEARS trent accepted the scientific conclusion of one scientist. Scientific conclusion are often wrong(maybe he researched it better that the video lets on, idk) I haven’t seen any nasty comments though. Unless you mean getting a chuckle out of reading beowulf as a historical record. But anyway, i think trent was kind and treated the subject quite fairly. Except like i said the potential ease with which he accepted a scientific conclusion.
What is YEC? And how did you get your link to stay in the comment? I've experienced several times providing a link to my comment causing the comment to get deleted. TH-cam seems very arbitrary regarding their policies.
It seem the video is attacking dinosaur existence in the middle ages, which is different from just dismissing YEC. You are correct regarding presentation of argument though.
@@elcidcampeador9629 What? Do the charitable thing and tell me, what dogma did I deny? This is a pretty serious accusation. You should offer some explanation.
I was raised as a YEC (as a Protestant) and spent years debating evolution and defending the literalistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2. What ultimately proved the biggest factor in changing my mind about my previous views was when I first encountered teaching about Genesis 1 and 2 from Catholic sources like Scott Hahn that looked at their covenant meaning and their place in salvation history. I realized, to my shock, that I had been reading and defending Genesis for years, and had never learned a single thing about what those passages actually meant to the Faith. I also realized that whether those passages were understood to be literal history or not, had basically no impact on understanding what they were meant to teach us. Essentially I realized that I had spent so much effort on trying to defend God's word being literal, and I had completely and absolutely missed what God was intending to say. From that point on I became convinced that the entire debate about literal young earth creation was a largely useless distraction. People can believe what they want in that regard. What actually matters is if you understand what the text MEANS. I think the devil is perfectly happy to have young earth creationists, so long as being young earth creationists keeps them distracted from what God is actually saying to them.
@@thomasjefferson6 or maybe Jesus just didn't think it was important enough to contradict what everyone thought and knew it would just become a big pointless distraction from his purpose and message.
As a former atheist turned Catholic, I can confirm that there are waaaaay better arguments against evolution that appealed to me than what Hall and Marshall were talking about. Look up video interviews with David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer on the subject. The first crack in the armor against evolution for me was a TH-cam video titled “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” that was put out by The Hoover Institute. After watching that I began looking up other videos by people in that video and the TH-cam algorithm showed me many other very reasonable and scientifically defendable stances AGAINST Darwinian Evolution as it is taught in schools.
As a believer I would not deny the possibility that God made a small miracle each time a new species appeared on earth. But I find it more reasonable that He created a universe where some laws allowed the appearance of new species from the existing ones. Such laws must not necessarily be identical to those produced by darwinists, but I will change them only for more complete and convincing ones.
Darwinian evolution, by itself, is considered incomplete even by many atheist evolutionary biologists. The Mendelian theory of genetics helped to fill in some of the gaps left by it, so that's another win for Catholics in my book. I also don't personally see many good reasons why God cannot work through something like evolution to achieve His goals.
Gus, exactly right. There's a lot of jumping through hoops on this topic. Yes there's a lot of holes in evolution. It doesn't follow to then craft a blended secular/religious narrative of creation. The entire secular narrative of creation is suspect.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 I don't believe God has to explicitly say everything He does just for Him to do it. That's putting an arbitrary limit on God just for the sake of the limit.
Unfortunately the young earth creationists make Christians look gullible and foolish. I’m almost 40 now and I remember when I was growing up this was one of the most convincing arguments kids used around the end of elementary school going into middle about why Christianity was just myths and fables. I was raised Catholic but in the southern United States around mostly Protestants. Most of the kids I went to school with were actually church going Christians, but by middle school most of us didn’t believe it, because of debates like these. Unfortunately my Church and the volunteers that taught are Bible study’s and CCD were not well equipped to help us answer these questions. I hope that the availability of TH-cam videos like these can help change the tides and make Christianity sound more reasonable to kids today that what I got growing up.
I’m sorry you feel like Christian’s look foolish when they defend a young earth. I wish evolution wasn’t pushed so hard and presented fairly instead of mocking young earthers and showing how there is evidence for both. But regardless of what society and culture say, the Bible seems to point to a young earth so that’s what I go with
@@pigglesworth1027 when I speak of a young earth, I mean life on earth. There is little evidence that (macro) evolution is scientifically accurate. I start with the Bible and then go to science. The Bible seems to suggest the earth and life on it is young. And there ways to interpret scientific data to support that. Im not familiar with the scientific evidence for an old earth. Can you share some?
@@pigglesworth1027 I’m terribly sorry if I made it sound like YEC is dogma or biblical fact, I just meant it is the most common understanding when you read the Bible You brought up some good points with good questions, but if you don’t want to talk about it that’s fine. If you change your mind, I’d love to talk about it! Have a good day, my friend!
@@pigglesworth1027 all good! I’m just an amateur with science, but I know a little. Yeah a lot of people are just so hostile to what they believe, no matter the topic. Atheists and Christians alike, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, theistic evolutionists and YEC… too many people are forgetting that everything we do is supposed to be done in love
Right but one need not accept Neodarwinianism to accept or explain descent with modification or natural selection. This dynamic can still hold under a different metaphysical framework, imc uding a theologically compatible one. Thus we come to theistic evolution. Science is not beholden to any particular model so a modified evolutionary model. So invalidating one type of evolutionary model does not invalidate the entire dataset since alternatives exist, such as again, theistic evolution, also the currently popular extended evolutionary synthesis model, even a combination of these. It is good to have alternatives though as it keeps the exploration of truth and refining the arguments and analysis where it might otherwise stagnate. Afterall, we can not account for unknown unknowns and usually only some known unknowns, so we must continually refine and reform our understanding from falsehoods here below. But the evolution versus creation debate is a cultural artifact of the 1800s over categories that on both sides, are not really relevant anymore as our understanding from study, or magisterial guidance, has increased.
Even if dinosaurs did survive into historical times, that would not disprove the theory of evolution. Paleontology tells us that many types of animals which still survive today - such as crocodiles and sharks - are as old as the dinosaurs but have not gone extinct. Sometimes species stick around for a long time.
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH #283 “ The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.”
What concerns me regarding theistic evolution is how its proponents almost always propose something adjacent to polygenism or "Adam was just the head of a tribe." I also find it incredibly find it quite frustrating to see St. Augustine propped up as if he is some precursor to theistic evolution. He believed nothing like that - in fact, he was the youngest earth creationist because he believed that the material world was created instantaneously. He could be wrong, but to use him to promote theistic evolution is disingenuous.
You should look into the Thomistic institute’s work on evolution. They argue that a historical Adam from whom everyone descended is compatible with the current scientific consensus, if I remember correctly.
@@calebadcock363It is. Scientists even observed how with a recent study of birds speciation how the new genetic variation of bird (the first gen) only mated within themselves.
Hall recently interviewed Dr. Rômulo Carleial, a creationist who is also an evolutionary biology researcher at Kew, London, with his doctorate from Oxford. Will you be addressing the arguments presented in that video?
POPE BENEDICT XVI: There “...is much scientific proof in favor of evolution which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life... In short, there is no necessary contradiction between scientific theories of evolution and Catholic belief. There is no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.”
Good video. I’m a Trad and I sometimes watch both these guys but I don’t know why they feel the need to discuss a topic so far removed from their areas of expertise. Trent seems correct that the Church has no opinion here and as St Augustine points out she has no need to yoke her theology to an opinion about material science. The latter come and go. Dragon time: my ancestor slew one in Scotland in the early twelfth century. It was three yards long and the color of an adder. It would open its jaws really wide and threaten peasants and livestock. It sounds like a saltwater crocodile that was really lost. I feel a bit bad for it but if there’s a dragon you’ve got to slay it. Noblesse oblige and all that.
To aaronsomerville2124: One of the wisest remarks I have seen related to this video! Thank you! I just wish that there was more caution about getting hitched to any "scientific consus". The Church got into trouble doing that before, when the scientific "consensus" was against Copernicus and was for Ptolemy.
I grew up in a hard core literal 6 day creation church as I got older I accepted something like theistic evolution, until I went to college and took biology courses. Despite the professors being all in on evolution I came away believing that evolution has a lot of explanatory power, but little else. Macro level evolution seems unbelievably unlikely, but 6 day creation seems silly. I am left with this squishy, "God did it, but I don't know what IT is." position.
Old Earth Creationism for the win! Basically that the Earth is billions of years old but macroevolution is false as God made all over long periods of time. Btw, I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, but leaning agnostic on this to be honest
@@SneakyEmu Most people can't grasp how unlikely an advantageous mutation is, and how unlikely that, in turn, makes any macro-evolutionary account that relies on the twin levers of random mutation and natural selection.
When I got to university, I found out that evolution had no explanatory power in specific cases (e.g. how the woodpecker evolved) or where new genetic information comes from. My biology profs were quite insistent that the real evidence for evolution comes from paleontology, while my geology/paleontology profs said that the main evidence for evolution comes from biology.
Saying "you're free to believe that" is true, if we remember we have a moral responsibility to seek and share the truth, not just what we wish were true. I don't think these conversations put enough stress on this point.
@@MarekGabro I agree, but I also go beyond that. If someone holds to young earth creationism out of a misplaced sense of piety, they're not fulfilling their moral duty to seek and share the truth.
Dear@@tafazziReadChannelDescription, well, evolution is rather a peripheral point, and not even dogma. I personally would prefer that Catholics study what the CCC says about blessings, and learn more about the various kinds of dignity of human beings. And perhaps spend some time in meditation on how we need to honor the pope, and not be judgmental, even if we don't fully understand what he is doing.
@susand3668 "the truth will set you free" it says. Church fathers were intelligent people, though truly about what they know, discussed instead of blind following. They followed after understanding why it is good. God gave us intellect and we have to use it
As a geoscientist I am completely baffled how young earth creationists can ignore so many different sources of evidence for an old Earth. There is always a lot of talk about fossils, but what about the different geochronological methods such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, luminescence dating, and electron spin resonance dating which all show an old Earth.
You are 100% right. To quibble around, you might add as methods of dating those involving radioisotopes and their decaying products with half-lives much longer than 5700 years. They help us date geological strata, and fossils contained in them, which are millions of years old. Allow me to say as a Christian and a scientist (certainly not the best around, but there you are) I am *overwhelmingly* baffled by young earth creationists. Creationism is a relatively recent movement born among protestants in England as reaction to the theory of evolution of Darwin, but it basically died out in its motherland. Instead, it flourished in the USA. While there are some "black sheep" in any family, like those of the Kobe center, you will not find educated Catholics in Europe who vocally support Creationism. We have learnt the lesson that an intelligent person such as St. Augustine taught us in the V century, i.e. 1500 years ago.
@@snokehusk223, the calibration curves from three ring data show when the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio change, so this is not a problem. And this still leaves other methods such as luminescence dating which work on different principals than radiocarbon dating, not to mention dendrochronology itself.
It's pretty easy to tell that dragons, in Europe at least, are based on snakes and lizards. Dragon comes from a word that actually means "very large snake". You gotta ignore quite a bit of evidence to claim that these are depictions of dinosaurs
As I said elsewhere, the only dinosaur I can think of at the moment, which even vaguely resembles the shape of a classic medieval dragon, would be our updated reconstructions of Spinosaurus. At least that dinosaur has a massive size, a long skinny body, a paddle-like tail, relatively short hind-limbs, large clawed forelimbs, a crocodilian-like jaw, and extra decorative features like the sail. Those features do at least come together to yield something, which resembles how the classic dragon usually has a more serpentine and lizard/crocodile-like frame with extra embellishments. So while it lacks wings, I could at least hypothesize see Spinosaurus standing in for some kind of flightless marsh/river dragon, due to its body shape and mostly aquatic lifestyle. However, all the other dinosaurs seem to barely look anything like a medieval dragon, unless one were to create a chimera of features from different dinosaurs (and possibly pterosaurs).
@@markcobuzzi826 definitely not pterosaurs, they would've been described as birds or bats more like due to their appearance. And even our modern reconstruction of spinosaurus is a stretch It makes way more sense to compare them to snakes, lizards, and other reptiles. That's actually why they're also called Wyrms, which is derived from the same word as our word Worm 🪱.
@@johnhoelzeman6683 That was my main intended point, how even comparing one of the more bizarre dinosaurs like Spinosaurus to dragons would be a stretch. And I meant to suggest that pterosaurs too look almost nothing like dragons/wyverns aside from their wings (and sometimes a long diamond-tipped tail), requiring one to amalgamate features from less related archosaurs before said pterosaur could start to even resemble one.
Editor earning that pay! Also I recognize you dropped the SSPX source for traditionalists to refer to because they would otherwise dismiss you just like Taylor Marshall made that comment about Catholic Answers. Someday I hope you take on the task of answering some of the SSPX arguments. Their presence online is over-representative. Many normal Catholics are either unfamiliar with what they are or unfamiliar with what kind of claims they make.
SSPX here, and i find YEC ridiculous. Also, it seems to me to be a very anglo-saxon thing (SSPX or not), and especially americans, because of protestant influence i guess. Here in France, it's nearly unexistent, and was totally unexistent before the internet...
@@jeanacremann2629 OK, but YEC is a belief that the Church has shown the faithful can hold. Believing that NO mass is heresy with no valid consecration of the Eucharist and that you can't go to Tridentine Latin masses outside of SSPX because their hosts might be comingled with NO host is very clearly not a view one can hold and be considered within the Church. Also participating in a mass of a priest not incardinated to a bishop with canonical mission is helping support an illicit mass and is schismatic.
I'm sorry, but no one reading the Beowulf poem would ever think that Grendel is a T-Rex. Anyone reading the poem sees that Grendel is a humanoid giant that is explicitly described as a descendant of Cain.
Props to you for being willing to engage with this argument. I spent about 5 minutes scrolling through comments on this video and the one you mention at the end, and I find it just so disheartening. People seem so angry and tribalistic. I don't know, it can be so frusturating to hear people debate this as if it's the dogma Christianity stands or falls on. Yes, we should believe true things, wherever that takes us, but this should not be made to be the issue that makes or breaks religion for people.
It should be make or break because many errors have come from evolutionist theory. man can change DNA, which had metastasized into the transgender argument / subjective truth
Well the reason it is often tribalistic is because there are theological implications that arise as a consequence of accepting either macroevolution or the literal 6-day creation. If you accept macroevolution, then you have to explain how death entered the world before sin and you still have to admit that humans were not created by an evolutionary process, but instead made in God's image from the dust of the ground and a spirit. You also have to explain how it have never rained before God made the Garden of Eden. Instead of a million little miracles, why not just take the account literally and have one big miracle? If you accept the literal 6-day creation account, you don't have any theological issues at all. Macroevolution, and it's theistic offshoot, is very weakly supported from a fossil record standpoint. It's basically an insult to God as a designer to attribute the beauty and awesome complexity of life as just a sequence of trial and error based on carefully crafted rules, like an AI generated image vs one drawn by an artist. Besides, God created everything "good" and macroevolution rejects that in favor of natural selection which implies defects. Not to mention that the reality we live in has suffered the effects of the fall and is not the same as it was created.
Agreed. He does not take it seriously enough. No young earth creationist bases their beliefs on random drawings from around the world of dinosaurs, so it is a straw man to hold that up and make a whole video on it
He hasn’t given any indication he won’t address more sophisticated arguments. The point of this video is to address a particular one that isn’t serving evangelism very well.
He's not saying young earth creationism isn't a valid opinion. He's tackling these arguments for it specifically (according to his opening statements). They are gaining popularity so he's warning against using them. He's not debating the overall validity of young earth creationism
Eh, you can make a strong scientific case for the young earth. And the Bible *seems* to suggest the young earth. I won’t give up on what I think the Bible teaches because some atheist scientists are pushing evolution. Atheists will always find a reason to reject the gospel, it doesn’t matter what we tell them about evolution. If not evolution, it’s Gods morality. Or it’s giving up their own lifestyle. Or it’s materialism. There’s always a reason to reject Christ, so no need to give up the fight against evolution
@@timothyvenable3336That's a problem. Why is there a "fight" against evolution? This is science we're discussing. We hurt our cause by attacking evolution, and even if we prove it's false, it won't help us in converting people so what's the point? lol Also, it's not only atheist scientists, but also the vast majority of christian and catholic scientists you're going against here.
If evolution is not true, obviously it should not be believed. It is attacked because many Christians don't believe it is true. Evolution is the cornerstone of the secular worldview. It is their creation myth. It also happens to be scientifically weak despite the number of people who believe it.
@@helovaz97 I wouldn’t say the “vast majority” of Christian scientists… But I agree salvation and evangelism has nothing to do with evolution. But we still need to have integrity with the word of God. There is a scientific case for a young earth (against evolution) but evolution is so mainstream and so popular that anything against it is brushed off as pseudoscience… dispute the fact evolution is 20% science and 80% theory based guesswork
One of my major stumbling blocks regarding the theory of Evolution and trying to reconcile it with the catholic faith is the following. If I were to summarize baseline what each fundamental doctrine of creation tells us, I would say this. If we accept Evolution as the fundamental doctrine of creation It seems we should what thou wilt to get ahead. Manipulate, lie, Deceive. Do whatever it takes to get ahead. Make sure it's your genes passed along and that's all that matters. Oppress those whom you deem to be weaker than you and use them only for yourself centered gainful purposes. Treat with cruelty those who do not bow down to your ideas and what you deem to be right. Gain as much power as possible regardless of whom you hurt. Destroy your enemies and anybody who gets in your way. Create an environment of fear to get others to be subservient to you. The theory of evolution inspires self-exaltation and making oneself their own god. Those who get in the way of "progress" need to be shut down and eliminated. The story of Genesis, if taken at face value inspires a recognition that we are not God. And that we have fallen from great heights. The story of Genesis if taken at face value makes us recognize that we are fallen human beings who without the grace of God are never going to come back to the heights from which we have fallen. The story of Genesis tells us that perhaps we shouldn't make ourselves our own gods but rather be obedient to the One who truly is God. The story of Genesis, if taken at face value tells us that God truly is a loving God who made a perfect universe free from defect sin disease, etc. and never intended us to be fighting for survival, killing and destroying others so that we may ourselves get ahead. The story of Genesis makes us realize that Cane murdering his brother Abel really was a horrible act and was not just one of millions of that we could have presumed to have happened between many sub human almost human beings (granted I suppose they did not have rational human souls yet and would never see the beatific vision or know God) The story of Genesis if taken at face value makes us recognize why we need a redeemer. Why we needed Christ himself to come and repair the damage done by Adam and Eve by original sin. The story of Genesis tells us that we really do have a loving God. who would it go so far as to send his only begotten Son to become man like us and to suffer and die for us and to give us hope that we might obtain the beatific vision in the future. He didn't create a universe where He himself treated suffering and death as his mechanism for improvement. Rather He took on suffering and death so that we might live. The theory of evolution tells us to sacrifice others so that we might live. These two theories about where we came from inspire completely different mindsets and I do not see how there is any getting away from it. We can talk about scientific evidence all day long, but I think if we are being honest with ourselves these two origin stories fundamentally inspire completely opposite mindsets. If we truly are being Christ like I don't see how we could ever come to the conclusion that God would have created the universe in such a despicable, ugly, and disgusting way as purported by the theory of evolution, which, by the way, seems to change over time but we treat it as dogmatic anyway.
I'd like to offer a few thoughts with regards to your comment that may be of help. Right off the bat, I'd say that the mechanism of evolution, which is species adapting to their environment over time, has little to do with the metaphysical and philosophical theories that sprang up around it (eugenics, the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Malthus, etc.). The mechanisms of science and the metaphysics of materialism, while many people conflate them, are only loosely related. Many of the moral issues that you mentioned come from a certain philosophical worldview that erroneously uses the idea of evolution to justify power-seeking aims. Secondly, I'd also like to stress that evolution includes as much co-operation as it does competition. Yes, animals do fight with each other for survival and to pass on their genes, but in the big picture there's also immense co-operation in whole ecosystems. We see what disasters occur when we meddle with ecosystems today. Studies of plants show that they work together, that different species will help one another, and that bigger trees will even release nutrients to feed smaller trees. I think that much of the "survival of the fittest" rhetoric around evolution is a result of the hyper-competitive capitalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, where to be a successful businessman meant screwing over your competition and seeking "profit" at all costs. On the other hand, the communism of the Soviet Union led to false beliefs like Lysenkoism, and their poor understanding of agriculture led to mass famine. The guiding philosophy of the day shapes how we look at science.
Similar to what the other responder brought up, I think you might be confusing “evolution” with “eugenics”, and the latter even has elements which contradicts the former. To elaborate below… When evolution driven by natural selection occurs (or artificial selection like when humans create distinct dog breeds), all that is stated is how certain genes/traits more beneficial to an organism’s reproductive success in its immediate environment are more likely to be passed down to the next generation. Thus, the frequencies of certain genes in a population may change. And when a new gene/trait is introduced to the population via events like mutations, that new gene/trait may become more prominent in the population over the generations, depending on how beneficial it is to “fitness” (reproductive). When a population gets split into two distinct groups facing different environmental pressures, then the two subpopulations may change in different directions, possibly to the degree that they become two different species and/or can no longer breed between one another. By extension, it is hypothesized that most of the species on Earth may have common biological ancestors including humans (though it neither affirms nor denies that humanity’s creation has additional qualities distinct from other animals like a rational spiritual soul). What is does NOT assert is that organisms can somehow become an “ultimate life form” (since traits beneficial in one environment/niche can be a detriment in others), that any one species is more “evolved” than another (from a strictly biological perspective), that selection has the inherent goal of yielding a more biologically complex species, whether some survival strategies are acceptable by human morality, and whether or not humans have additional dimensions governing them (like religion, objective morality, etc.). And similar to what the other person pointed out, natural selection can just as easily promote simpler organisms as more complex ones, or more altruistic/cooperative/monogamous behaviors as more selfish/malevolent/non-monogamous ones. I think a better characterization is that, when natural selection is left purely to its own devices, it is no more morally good/bad than a rainstorm or tornado. Yet it makes no comment on its own, whether or not humans should hold themselves to a higher standard than those amoral forces. Now, once we get into the topic of “eugenics”, that is the philosophy/pseudoscience which seems to yield all the problems you point out. That is the one which asserts humanity should only govern themselves by a particularly ruthless version of “survival of the fittest”. Also, it actually contradicts evolutionary science by insinuating that humanity can make itself the equivalent to an “ultimate life form” or inherently superior biological species, by this process.
@Skin_Man In the case of Genesis I think the only way one can reasonably interpret it is the plain obvious literal historical sense. The only reason I can think that some of us choose not to see it in the plain and obvious, sense presented in scripture is.because we have put too much faith and trust in human reason. Perhaps this is a perfect example of where pride leads us where mere creatures with limited human intelligence are literally telling an infinite being who already revealed to us how he made the universe how things actually happened. Unfortunately, instead of taking an infinite being at his word, we seem to be more apt to think we can reason our way back to how things happened at the beginning. Also one of the things evolution, without a doubt, undermines is sin and it's effects. Sin without a doubt darkens the human intellect. I think that evolution is ultimately an example of a major lie God has handed us over to because we have failed to love the Truth.
All month I’ve been thinking about “that one Catholic guy that doesn’t pray the luminous mysteries on Thursday, whatever happened to him” I now know and have the name to put to the face 😅
I am a protestant turned Catholic. ICR and AIG both played massive roles in my faith years ago. They helped take the spiritual mental ascent of belief in Jesus while living a heathen lifestyle and challenged me with really real world implications of the faith. Having to reconcile and root faith in reality caused me to become very serious about the every other aspect of the faith. God became a reality, Christ a real person and not a mythical example pious living, the scriptures became reliable, the church and other doctrines were no longer up for grabs and at the mercy of subjective wants and inclinations. I praise God for young earth creationism and to the day, after many interactions with nay sayers, have never heard anyone give convincing proof to the contrary... and if I'm open minded and submitted to Christ enough to go from Catholic hating fundamentalism to being Catholic and submitting to Christ's teaching even at the expense of comfort, close relationships, and ego... then that's really saying something. By the way, I absolutely love Catholic answers and se it as an invaluable resource. However, this is one topic I think, at least Trent, a man who has helped me tremendously to see the truth, has got wrong.
If you hold to a Young Earth on grounds of piety, you're wrong. It's not a belief that nakes you a better Christian, it's just not part of divine Revelation. If you hold to it based on science, you're still wrong but it's far easier to point you to the facts.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription weird, I never indicated I held to it to be pious. Or that it's divinely revealed. I think you responded to the wrong comment.
@@menoftheclothKTOG great, if your concerns are just in the scientific sphere that means we share our interpretation of the magisterium on this issue. I'm Happy to talk about science if you want
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Though it's not dogmatically defined by the church I don't pit science against the creator of the creation. However, your right that my concerns are the lack scientific evidence for macro evolution. Whatever the truth of God's handiwork is, I have never heard a convincing argument that can't be easily dispelled by either evidence, logic or both.
I was listening to this during work, filling out a form and as I heard the argument of Kennedy that dragons were dinosaurs that survived my brain stopped working and couldn’t remember the date for a couple of minutes a I just stared at the paper blankly. Literally broke my brain. Don’t worry I paused, dated the form correctly and restarted the video.
If creationists are accepting dragons based on drawings, they will also have to accept centaurs. Plenty of drawings of those around. And, after all, ;why would someone draw a creature that didn't exist?
I think the idea is that minotaurs and phoenixes (phoenixi?) clearly have origins in certain cultures. But just about every culture on the planet tells stories of giant terrifying lizard monsters.
@@SLERKED Lots of people talked about centaurs. Lots of people talked about unicorns. The history of humans is filled with stories of fantastical animals. There are still people who believe the L:och Ness monster exists. As I said, if you're relying on pictures drawn by humans as evidence, you're going to have to accept a lot more than dragons.
The Cambodian thing might be a pangolin. The dragons around the world is also similar to how the cyclops was introduced into myth: they found fossils and got scared. The cyclops itself is a tuskless mammoth head. There are several ancient writings about finding huge bones of dragons, but never totally seeing a dragon, until you get to komodo dragons and monitor lizards.
The dragons slayer legend in my opinion was always influenced by slavic Yarilo myths (as in slavic countries the two are super closely knit together) and the dragon was probably a croc based on the region where the real st. George lived, or atleast close enough. But young earth creationists always amase me, not as much as mormons but they are less imaginatively qeird in retteling the real gospels.
@counsel of Trent - how about Adam and Eve. Do you believe they are real people? a lot of modernist Catholics think they are not. But that creates a lot of problems like Jesus is mentioned as the second Adam. These are things which I feel makes it difficult to reconcile the creation account in Genesis and macro evolution (all species including humans evolved from a single cell).
The “AI generated” on the impeccably crafted images of dinosaurs and humans living together was very helpful, I wouldn’t have known they were edited otherwise.
@@elcidcampeador9629 ah, another who has a stumbling block with the papacy and the magisterium. But yes, tell me as a lay magistrate why it’s a stumbling block for Pope Francis?
Not gonna lie, I love Dr. Tay! I was a biology major back in the day though so there’s no way I could ever be sold by YEC. In fact, when I was an edgy college student who would argue with people about this nonsense, this is an argument I came across from none other than Kent Hovind, crazy evangelical tax evader. He’s insane and runs a YEC theme park in Florida called “dinosaur adventure land.” Look him up, it’ll keep you busy for an afternoon 😂
It's in Alabama now, not Florida. It's kind of tacky to identify him as a "evangelical tax evader". It's really just ad hominem garbage by attacking someone's character just because you disagree with him. Attack his arguments not his character. I bet you can't, that's why you resort to name calling
I’m not really a younger creationist but I think trends arguments a little weak. What I would point out is that he says the fuse drawings of the ancient from medieval drew barely resemble the dinosaurs we know today. But the dinosaurs we know today are just guesses as to what they actually look like. Often we found bones that were incomplete there’s only one complete set of T-Rex bones today for example. Using that logic how would they know what one look like?
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Statue of Mary? Not sure what you saw but that was a statue of the IDOL Pachumama…? Idk what you’re on to think that was a statue of Mary dude
This is always a breath of fresh air. I'm a homeschooler and I'm surrounded by young earth people. I understand why the Church doesn't have a stance on the age of the earth, but I am glad that Catholics, overall, are not young earth.
@@Marilyn-np2xh she allows for it if it's a belief held on scientific grounds. If you believe in it because you think that's what Divine Revelation says, you're not listening to the church.
Tafazzi, you apparently didn’t listen to what Trent said at the beginning of the video. ‘The Catholic Church does NOT have a teaching about the theory of evolution. You can be a faithful Catholic and deny or accept the theory of evolution.’ You are adding your own opinion to that. I will listen to the teaching of the Church and not you.
@@Marilyn-np2xh she teaches it's not a subject that's contained in divine revelation. In paragraph 283 she explicitly defers to science for these investigations. You *are* free to disagree on evolution, if it's on intellectually honest grounds. Saying "I don't believe it because I don't think it's compatible with the Faith" just proves you're not listening to the church, who is the interpreter of Divine Revelation. If you instead say "I don't believe it because I think this non-evolutionary model of the world fits the evidence better", you'd not be doing anything wrong, even though I'd bet there is a mistake along the way there.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription "...she[the Church] allows for it if it's a belief held on scientific grounds. If you believe in it because you think that's what Divine Revelation says you're not listening to the church." So you actually think that the Church bans people from believing in young Earth creationism based on the Bible, and that the Church only allows people to hold that belief if they claim it's based on science? I'm pretty sure you invented that idea on the spot for that comment, since there's no evidence or precedent for suggesting that the Church verifies the reasons for your scientific beliefs.
I'd like to make a general comment about the new editing. I'm glad lots of people seem to enjoy it. I've enjoyed the show and contributed on Patreon for a few years. I still really love the show, Trent was instrumental in my conversion, but I will admit the new editing isn't really for me personally. I don't do social media or tiktok or much of the modern short form stuff. The new editing style with the constant frame changes, pop ups, clips jumping in, etc feels very frantic and a bit jarring to me. It feels like it is catering a bit to shorter attention spans. It probably would have been a turn off for me when I first found the show. Like I said, I'll still be watching and I hope the changes are a net positive for everyone. I just wanted to provide some honest feedback.
@@elcidcampeador9629 your assumption seems to assume that these things you mentioned are “bad” or that the universe “should’nt” be that way. But since you did not bring the universe into being. How could you possibly be in a position to know that?
As a long time listener, I'd reevaluate the need for so many sound effects. To the people who consume your content audio-only, it's incredibly distracting!
Well done. Science and Religion ought to complement each other with their own expertise. This one video was well balanced, and by also calling out the incoherent commenters makes it worth to promulgate it impartially. Keep up the good work backed up with the Church's authoritative facts, and avoid any personal ambiguous opinion.
@@bobinindiana I did write well done and well balanced, didn't I? I had to add to "avoid any personal ambiguous opinions", 'cuz sometimes he has had some minor "slurs" that didn't entice its promulgation.
Calvin Smith with AiG Canada has listed several drawings worldwide of dinosaurs 🦕 so maybe the subject is debatable. The vestibule of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, features a huge long Chinese-style dragon suspended from the ceiling. The Museum also has a huge complete dinosaur skeleton.
@@bobinindiana The whole point is not if dinosaurs existed, but if humans lived together with them Perhaps you should go watch Kent Hovind's videos too, he also did a good job at showing skeletons of giant people! 😂
@@therealong Why do you make fun of Kent Hovind, a man broken by prison? Darwinist teach dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and man evolved from molecules a couple of million years ago. Genesis teaches that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour days and that Adam named the dinosaurs 🦕
I do think that most YECs believe that dinosaurs are very very rare in history, because most or all were killed in the flood. The real thing that needs to be proved is that dinosaurs existed pre-noah and dragons are based on legends passed down of their existence. If you're gonna tackle this issue you really should look into the Loch Ness monster or Mokele-mbembe. I am unsure on my stance on YEC. I just find this stuff interesting and I find a lot of arrogance on both sides.
Probably many dinosaurs 🦕 died in the Ice Age but those not in the area of the Ice Age would have lived on to die out of other causes. Some must have died recently because the flesh on their bones is sometimes elastic.
@@bobinindiana That's a good point. That's some of the most convincing evidence. There is a protein found in their bones that should have rotted away, but is still there. I think someone made a response to that, but I did not find it particularly convincing.
@@tylerbrock6047 Thank you for the kind words! I’m elderly so the correct details on this are beyond my knowledge so please post more if you have time.
I stopped listening to Taylor Marshall, when he started bashing catholicism NOM, and anyone who didn't go to latin mass was not catholic, and was repugnant. After much bashing of the pope etc.. and his weird conspiracy theories I had enough. Thanks Trent for truly respecting NOM and latin mass, and the faith in general. Godbless
I do think many Catholics automatically "bend the knee" to science because we are so afraid of being like those "fundamentalist prots", and this can get us into a spirit that almost over-rationalizes the faith and makes us scared of our own tradition. These specific young earth creationist arguments are indeed silly, but there are some rather compelling ones out there (e.g. consensus of the Father, this being a matter of scriptural interpretation per the genealogies, etc). This overrationalization can even lead people into unsuspecting heresy, like the idea of Adam not being our true ancestor.
@@InhabitantOfOddworldAll of Genesis is more concerned with the history of the Hebrews. I can’t believe more people don’t recognize this. It doesn’t even attempt to explain where gentiles come from. It feels more like a preamble to Exodus than its own book sometimes.
@@seantolson6223 I agree. That's my point RE Adam. He's the progenitor of the Hebrews, not all humanity. The OP recites a common erroneous assumption, but such is the problem when universalist Christians try to sell an ethnic Jewish religion to the whole world. Gentiles are just among the non-descript humans created in Ch 1 prior to Ch 2 where Adam and Eve were created specifically, apart from prior humanity, in the GoE.
Adam and Eve are the first parents of humanity according to dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. There is no wiggle room on that one. To claim otherwise is heretical.
I remember more than a year ago watching a Taylor Marshall bible study video and being blown away by him casually discussing dinosaurs co-existimg with humans. It's embarassing for someone with an academic knowledge of scripture not knowing basic history and makes religion look worse to unbelievers.
No, the creature in question is not rhinoceros, since it's tail is way to big and it does have a spike on it's tail, as is clearly seen. What do you mean "it's head is too small"? The Stegosaurus had a very small head compared to it's body.
I actually thought it's possible triceratops or one of its relatives like the ceratops could be the ancestor of the rhinoceros. One part of Kennedy and Taylor's theory has a big hole...most drawings of depictions of dragons would depict them as meat eaters. Stegasaurus was an herbivore.
Trent can you tell us more about the early Church writings on the wall on prayer to Mary and saints? You had a discussion with Allie recently but it seems it was edited/ cut out.
_"but __10:27__ scientists have now shown that the __10:28__ alleged human Footprints at the plexy __10:30__ tracks only look human because of __10:33__ erosion"_ Have they _shown_ it, as in replicating a foot print from some known fossil species, and speeding up erosion to get at least 10 % results replicating the Paluxy footprints? Or have they _hypothesised_ that this is what happened, and you overdo their epistemic weight?
4:44 Especially as no Stegosaurus fossils have been found in Cambodia ... How many fossils of animals having lived 1000 years ago do you find in Cambodia at all? A Stegosaurus or a dog or a monkey having died in Cambodia 1000 years ago would have quickly disintegrated. The existence of lots of fossils is actually one argument for the unique conditions of the Flood. Conditions that did not persist in Cambodia 1000 years ago.
there are many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago, even people that pretend to do science related to the flood admit that there are more recent fossils and that the record does not stop at whenever they date the flood.
We have to consider the sources for proof of evolution and for creation. Picking and choosing from the scriptures is not as appealing to me as it was before. If Jesus hadn't mentioned the flood, I could think of it as allegorical or mythological. Matthew 24:37-39
There is not a rule such as "if Jesus refers to something which was common knowledge at His time, then that thing is literal". Jesus also refers to Jonah, whose book is labeled as a literary work even by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
@@Zimisce85 that's my rule. I think a flood makes more sense than a comet and dinosaurs turning into birds over 66.6 million years too. And I don't think Jesus would mention Jonah or the Flood in such a way if they did not happen. It would be deceptive. There were plenty of parts of the old testament he could have referenced, but he chose those.
It seems like there's good evidence for something of a middle ground. There's decent evidence for micro evolution, which means that macro evolution is technically possible. However, there's little actual evidence for it, and some good evidence against. There was a study done on the DNA of hundreds of species stored in a DNA bank in.. I think Norway. They found that most of the species alive today showed a similar number of mutations. (not exactly mutations, but I forget what they're called.) the problem with this is that, if current evolutionary theory is true, animals with a shorter breeding cycle like ants or flies should show significantly more mutations due to their shorter life cycle and more rapid breeding (meaning more chances for mutation.) they don't, which indicates that the current understanding of evolution is either significantly incomplete, or just wrong. Another major thing against the current theory is what happened after mass extinction. If the current theory was true, then after a mass extinction you would expect to see the slow redevelopment of diverse and specialized life. That's not what we see though. The fossil record indicates a near instant, spontaneous explosion of complex life after each mass extinction. The current theory can't explain that. I'm not saying evolution is false, but if it's true, our understanding of it is woefully incomplete.
This comment is the epitome of "defend medieval dinosaurs to own the modernists." Modern science may be wrong about some things but it's not wrong about *everything*, and admitting that does mean you are "bending the knee to modern science". IF that were the case then the next time you get sick, instead of going to a hospital you should have someone drain you of your blood, since that's that they did as early as a couple hundred years ago (the idea being to get the bad blood causing the sickness out of you). "Modern science isn't right about everything, therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived with humans" is an embarrassment argument.
Tbh I’m not sure if I would classify those two together, since biology clearly teaches two clear genders (intersex are not a new gender, but a special condition where the person isn’t fully XX or XY. And even that is not applicable to the trans movement nowadays).
@@samueljennings4809 yeah, if we are to use technical language, the human species has two sexes. The concept of "intersex" is "any person who has a disease or condition that gravely impacts the sex-dependant structures and characteristics of the body", it's defined in reference to the binary that always applies in humans.
Honestly, I think Trent just doesn't like the political inconvience of young earth creationists. The idea that dinosaurs lived with humans for a time seems more reasonable than every culture across the globe just happened to dream up the samne mythical creature. As far as to whether such art depicts a certain type of dinosaur, I would leave for an expert. But if a piece of aert has to resemble a dinosaur perfectly to be counted, then many peoples alsop never seen a human before. I find the disnmissal on grounds of lack of anatiomical accuracy to be asburd. Maybe there are some evolutionary explainations such art, but you shouldn't dismiss young earth theories out of hand.
Well it could be argued, and most likely true that YEC has contributed to a lot of smarter people leaving the Church, or not willing to join. There does not seem to be much of a benefit to it these days.
@@josephmoore5949 Highly dubious claim that those people are "smart". You can say "educated", but you surely can't say "smart". Intelligence hasn't been the main factor in education for over half a century now.
they didn't dream up the dragons from nothing, fossils are found all over the world and it's not that hard to see that those bones belonged to big, lizardy things.
I wouldn't say dinosaurs lived with humans but ancient people likely discovered bones of prehistoric animals and believed that they were dragons, giants, griffins, etc
@@BahamutZero09 Fair point. Although I thought you had to dig fairly deep to find fossils? I don't know how deep ancient people could dig, but they were pretty smart, so I wouldn't dismiss it.
Crazy people say crazy things, whether they believe in God or no. As a dinosaur I hate all changes but feel snug and happy in Lough Ness. If you could reduce the number of tourists that would be nice. I did promise Columba that I would never harm a human again, but I didn’t realize how harassed I would be.
I like Marshall and Hall in that they take the faith very seriously and are uncompromising with the secular culture. With that said, I cannot get on board with YEC. Unless Satan has somehow been intentionally tricking us and playing greatly with our minds, there just seems no good basis at all for it. The evidence seems to be too overwhelming. I actually think the Bible can be enhanced in some ways when you do not take everything written in it literally. There can be more power and meaning in a metaphorical sense than a literal sense. This YEC I also think has undoubtedly contributed to many smarter people leaving the Church perhaps. Though I do find YEC to be a thing more in certain Protestant circles.
If you leave because other people hold to a younger earth then you weren’t there for Jesus. This is a bad argument and shouldn’t be used. Just make it clear than neither OEC or YEC is a part of the gospel and these problems go away.
@@jordandthornburg I think that argument probably applies today. I think in the past (and again, more in Protestant circles) you have kids who grew up in families being taught that YEC is the only truth. That almost the entire Bible is to be taken literally. They could not believe in that and so they gave up. Maybe they learned later that there were other ways of understanding the faith, but probably too late for many of them at that point. Though even today you still have many Protestants in the south that hold to this YEC view and teach it as absolute truth. Many kids are still growing up in that. And in today's high information era and increased access to higher education, I think you are going to continue to see a decline in faith.
There's also the potential to consider that dragons were influenced by fossils. The cyclops was likely the result of mammoth bones, which had a single large opening due to the snout. Dragon could be similar. They found the bones and then tried to explain them within the context of their myths.
I myself am a YEC and I can definitely say there are some pretty weak and dumb arguments thrown around. This one should have been left as a theory for Marshal to ponder on his own time.
@@spiderdxn2263 Perhaps from a scientific or incomplete viewpoint, but God creating something from nothing in contrast to the laws of nature shows us that science is not always the answer. Moreover, my reasoning for a young earth stems from a philosophical argument for why there was not a macro-evolutionary process of man or beast. No evolution=no need for billions of years to fit a narrative.
I have to back Stacy Trasancos on this. As a former Agnostic (though infant baptized Catholic, much later confirmed back into The Church), I still do, and always will, believe in science, evolution, and the beauty and symmetry it hints at, hints at what only our lord Father in heaven can create and set into motion. Science in no way, whatsoever, contradicts The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Not one iota. Those that cannot see this, have their eyes closed. Willfully.
While I agree with what you said, I do find it strange that you don't condemn Polygenism or correct your colleague Jimmy Akin's Polygenism which is opposed to church teaching.
the dutch national catechism, who recieved vatican approval, puts forth a legitimate way to understand polygenism. Biological polygenism is not a problem, what's against divine revelation is proposing that the rational soul didn't radiate into the homo sapiens species from a first couple.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Not sure if what you said is true. But if Adam and Eve are not literal two individuals, I'm done being catholic. You have 0 level of credibility or falsifiability when you take this position. Here are a few problems with Polygenism. The teaching Magesterium is pretty clear, that Polygenism is False. Humani Generis Paragraph 36, 37 Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 635, quotes Ancient Homily for Holy Saturday, which is definitely in reference to a couple. There are even icons of Christ descent into hell raising up Adam and Eve. Romans 5 definitely is not in reference to Polygenism New adam and eve typology destroyed and thus is undermining the Immaculate conception. No church fathers would hold this view if they were alive today. Some of the greatest modern Biblical scholars e.g. brant pitre deny polygenism as being compatible with church teaching Jesus quotes Matthew 19:5-6 which is in Genesis 2. Clearly referencing a historical Adam and Eve that is a single pair. Here are more problems with Polygenism: timstaples.com/2019/were-adam-and-eve-real-or-symbols/ Some falling into the extreme, will place the foundation of our faith in the natural use of our intellect. This kind of Pelagianism should be condemned. Apologetics is not a replacement for the faith.
@@whitevortex8323 I never said they're not two individual. If you define them as "the first male homo sapiens with a rational soul" and "the first female homo sapiens with a rational soul", you get two people that certaintly existed. What some people used to see as incompatible with the christian faith is the proposition that homo sapiens with a rational soul could concieve by mating with homo sapiens without it. However the church never said that can't be the case! Polygenism is not a useful word because it doesn't apprechiate the distinction between homo sapiens with a rational soul, and homo sapiens without. To make it simple: the sin of a couple can easily be the cause of the fall of man, even if Cain's wife was not his sister.
Clear and compelling. As a Catholic scientist, I cringe when uninformed, but well-meaning folks use anti-scientific arguments to support the faith. The truth doesn’t need such assistance. Excellent quality video Trent!
These vain and effete self-proclaimed "trad" influencers are so tiresome and, frankly, often dim on this topic. Which is really too bad, because I agree with them on most other topics.
They were homo sapiens but most likely not descendants of Adam and Eve. Even with this model, it wouldn't even take 2000 years for all humans to be descendants of Adam
Pretty disingenious to use that Augustine quote at the end when Augustine is defending a more literal reading of Genesis.....and not say that in the video?? Weird
Yeah Augustine gets cited all the time in reference to the belief in "not necessarily 6 day creation". He believed in instantaneous creation of everything. Quite the opposite of a gradual billion year creation
But if someone like Trent who believes that Catholics are free to hold either view is correct, then it doesn’t matter which reading Augustine held to. He was applying the principle of the quote, which was not to make ridiculous arguments thinking you know what you’re talking about, lest you turn people away from Christ.
@@calebadcock363 The ridiculous arguments are coming from those who are raising old earth theology to the level of a dogma. If you think siding with the early church fathers is ridiculous, I think you have your priority of authority wrong.
@@TheCounselofTrent age of earth isn't something I've looked into or is a particularly high priority for me, though the young earth people don't only rely on only these arguments addressed in the video. They also question the methods and reliability of the tests to determine the age of rocks and fossils. As a non-scientist I just have to trust the tests and results they claim. However on the theory of evolution (humans have an ancestor that was a fish or something) I can't believe it. It doesn't make sense to me that there were loads of monkey-like animals without a soul, then at some point one evolved and God gave it a soul? And what about the female, that monkey-like animal evolved at the same time? Is there any evidence (fossils?) for the leap from fish to monkey to human... The theory of God creating humans feels much more consistent to me than the theory of evolution
Jimmy was just theorizing and surmising to a hypothetical question asked......are you suggesting there's a problem that needs to be deconstructed with what he had to say? Because he wasn't scoffing at or criticizing anyone else and he wasn't suggesting the Church had any specific teaching on it. It was really clear it was his own personal ideas of possibilities. That's not in the same category as what Trent addressed here
@@Deuterocomical That said it does not appear as though Hall and Marshall are imposing it in such a way. At least based off of the clips shown in the video here.
I think it's definitely possible God created the Earth already aged like how Adam and Eve were created as fully grown adult humans. However, it's definitely not necessary for this to be the case and we certainly don't know this to be true. It's just that God obviously isn't limited by the physical reality He created.
The claim that the paluxy river tracks are an effect of erosion is manifestly false. Explain how erosion made dermal ridges on the footprints? Interesting how the human tracks are so confidently listed as "an effect of erosion", whereas at the same time the dinosaur tracks aren't questioned.
@@johndeighan2495 The problem is that Trent claims science can simply explain this but in reality it can't, he should stop spreading evolutionist propaganda.
@@johndeighan2495Because it looks like human tracks. You are ones claiming EROSION didn't affect dinosaur tracks only human tracks because that would destroy evolution "millions of years ".
@@MichaelAChristian1 Well, I guess it's on you to look into why even most people on *your* side of the debate (if it even deserves that name) think the river tracks are a bad argument.
@@johndeighan2495 Again. I know why Because they are being weak to evolutionists lies. If you believe footprints that LOOK human must be dinosaurs that's called in SPITE OF EVIDENCE. Don patton answered all their objections and actually did experiments of footprints, they are RUNNING prints. Further the evolutionists were caught smashing them to pieces because they know exactly what it looks like. They wouldn't have bothered making up a lie unless they knew what footprints look like.
Real quick since you Mentioned Dr. Taylor Marshall. I'm Lutheran and I surround myself with many Catholic channels since our Theology is so close and I often use Catholic and Lutheran sources in local debates with Reformed Evangelicals. Anyhow, this is to say that I was watching the SSPX and Taylor Marshall show and saw them or in particular Taylor Marshall claim that the founders of Lutheranism were evil men and it was a bit gross to me. I'm not offended by being told I'm wrong or have mistaken beliefs but these particular Catholics often take their antagonism of non-catholics to the point of prejudice. Hope I'm not misrepresenting them. Just voicing my experience
The theology of Lutheranism is not "so close" to Catholicism. "faith alone", "scripture alone", denial of the eucharist, denial of the papacy, and others held by your sect are satanic man made doctrines not taught by God's word or the Church. Same with your sect's insistence of female "bishops", false clergymen, promotion of contraception, etc. The Catholic faith and membership in God's Church (the holy Catholic Church) is needed for salvation.
I find Martin Luther rather off-putting myself.. I have heard the polished and good faith takes.. yet if you actually dive into him, the scatology against the Church, the flatulation and feces references is quite dirty and unworthy of arguement. how on one hand he encouraged German peasants to revolt, only to turn around and support the Princes with "divine right". He made the German language amongst all the dialects, which is good, yet comes with a National identity resisting authority(Rome, The Church) and his rather anti-Jewish teachings obviously influenced later generations(WWII and Adolf), even stated at Nuremburg. Lutheran Church did support them, even acknowledged it, Dachau was first used for Catholic priests who resisted the regime, the more the Church spoke out, the more reprisals happened.. there is a reason Einstein wrote and thanked the Church, this just isn't talked about or well known as so many just dismiss the Church with recoil after the scandals by infiltrators and subverters. I am Trad Catholic myself and think he coulda/most likely had some evil goin on.. seemed to have many battles with Satan and demons in his own words.. how he dealt with it was quite unique, so to speak... alot of his table talks are in the original Vulgar German, so unless you go looking, you just get the censored, poliahed, good faith interpretation of those that benefit from it
You know there are large branches of Lutheranism that literally proclaim as part of their confession of faith that the pope is literally the anti-Christ. How do you feel about that?
“If you don’t think T-Rex had a Scottish accent, you ain’t black.”- Joe Biden
"I remember two male dinosaurs kissing when I was leaving the theater. My dad said to me that those dinos are in love Jack"
“I spent a night in jail next to a stegosaurus for protesting against discrimination of Dino carnivores. That’s a true story Jack! Not made up.”
I’m ded
😂😅- C'mon man!!
This exchange made me laugh way more than it should have lol
St. Georges dragon was added to the story much later (medieval times) St. George was a Roman soldier who refused to deny Christ and his faith and was martyred for it. I was always taught the dragon represented Satan and his lies.
Dragons, serpents, and snakes are generally an analogy for evil amongst Christianity.
St Patrick, he who converted Ireland from paganism, is referred to have "driven snakes out of Ireland". Ireland doesn't have snakes, so it makes a perfect analogy, where "snakes" refers to paganism, and that became the folklore.
Similarly, St George managed to stop a sacrificial pagan cult, and convert the people to Christianity. A dragon is a perfect analogy for that - a serpent like creature that feeds on the people.
The tradition to depict St George as a literal dragon slayer in icons came later. But this is a perfect depiction! It concisely shows St George ending a dangerous sacrificial paganism in very few details (simply depicting paganism/evil as a well known at the time and even to this day analogy: a dragon, dragons being more dangerous than a snake represents the sacrifice, and the woman St George saves in the icon from the dragon, represents the woman saved from being sacrificed according to tradition), whilst also showing the association of St George as a warrior saint, by showing him in such light defeating the serpent. His bravery shown when defeating the dragon being analogous to his usual bravery as a warrior saint.
This was a perfect depiction, especially beginning from a culture where warrior figures a prevalent (Illiad and Odessy, Hercules, etc). In addition, because this is a well established trope allusion (a brave hero, called to a courageous task, enemy/serpent/witch defeated), placing a Christian historical figure in such allusion immediately makes people who may not know who St George is, but look at the icon for the first time, they immediately know what kind of person he is. The dragon is an obvious analogy to evil, but this depiction is an illusion to previous heroes, and what St George was like immediately from looking at a well established analogy.
I had a modern example in mind, but I can't quite recall it. The closest modern equivalent I can think of right now, is how adding sunglasses to a picture of an existing person makes anyone who looks at the image of the person, that he is "cool", "awesome", or "bada**".
These are icons and traditions with very deep 'lore' (out of lack of better wording), many details and history which are very interesting to study, and you can learn so much about St George. But sadly, some people choose to not go that path, and fail to learn the truth.
I say this a lot: Christianity's greatest enemies from within are extreme fundamentalists and extreme progressives/liberals. Both forget that the Bible is a collection of historical narratives, eyewitness accounts, poems, proses, allegories, moral codes, and more. It should not be read the same through out like a fiction book, because it isn't.
Leviathan and the dragon symbolize chaos that is then subdued and a rule of order is placed over it. I love God’s opening to Job - HE created the leviathan… and Genesis 1:1 begins with chaos and God subduing it. That chaos was created by God, too.
@@cerebrummaximus3762 Dragons, serpents & snakes are not just symbol of evil. They have quite complex symbolism. Related i.e. to both good & evil angels. And also chaos.
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting." ~ John 3:14-15.
"Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves." ~ Matthew 10:16.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 That's true actually
Exactly.
Calling Beowulf "historical" would be to read LOTR five hundred years later and think Balrogs are real. (Give credit to our ancestors for being just as, if not more creative and imagitive than ourselves.)
Exactly!
well, if Beowolf is historical and Tolkien translated the most famous version of Beowolf maybe LOTR is just a translation as well
In college (dare I say it - 50 years ago!) I read “Beowulf” in a modern translation, as well as portions in the original Old English. It never occurred to me (or to the professor, for that matter) that the text was describing a battle between a human being and a dinosaur. The professor, I know, is still alive. Should I contact him and tell him the news? 😮
I’d like to consider Beowulf was a much older story recounting human/Neanderthal contact. This Kolbe Center guy suggesting a dinosaur…just…why?
@@NGAOPC William Golding, best known for “Lord of the Flies,” wrote a novel called “The Inheritors,” which depicts the very conflict you’re talking about. It can be rather hard to follow in places because the action is told from the point of view of the Neanderthals, who, because of their “lower” intelligence, don’t understand much of what they’re confronting.
Stegosauruses in Cambodia is the name of my new band.
Stegos in Cambodia, flows better
S.I.C
Wasn't it a song by the Dead Nixons?
Catholic metal band!
I’d go on Holiday to see you play
Watch out Trent! you are exposing yourself to a video response from Taylor entitled: "When evolutionist catholics argue like atheists" 😂
@zorrobatman1
Are you implying TM already made a response to this one? 😅😂🤣
Don't. Don't give me hope. 😅
@@n4ughty_knight
Zorro didn't respond. Do you know if TM made a video after Trent's one, or hasn't? I already know he had made one, but I was not interested to listen to it.
PS: Btw., of course you gotta have some hope, whatever hope you can get...
@@therealong I don't think so because this is still new. Lets wait and see what happens.
@@n4ughty_knight
I don't think he will engage Trent or any others. He could loose credibility from his "gullible ones"... 😂
I was expecting that they would read Genesis as a literal account. I wasn’t expecting them to read Beowulf as a literal account. 😂
I’m relatively new to Christianity as in I am returning to the Catholic Church after lapsing in my teens. Are we not meant to take Genesis literally?
@@GMurph2336 You can if you like, but I don’t. We should be open to the different genres of Scripture. The Church Fathers like Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine all ready Genesis differently than what modern fundamentalists insist is the only possible reading.
If you look at the literal story of Genesis it’s very different from how we interpret according to our tradition. The serpent is nowhere called or implied to be the devil. God lies to them and tells them they’ll die then they eat the fruit, it’s our tradition that reinterprets it as spiritual death. God can’t find Adam hiding behind a tree. God complains to the other gods about how scared he is now that the humans have eaten the magical fruit. The literal account of Genesis is utterly foreign to our faith. Original sin, the temptation of the Devil, these are all things we read from our tradition of interpretation and not form the text. And that’s okay. I believe in the spiritual interpretation not the literal story on the page. That’s a good thing. Some of the Church Fathers talk about how the Bible is a harp but the Holy Spirit comes and plays the harp. Inspiration is not confined to the page but must take form in the Community that these Scriptures were delivered to. It is the Holy Spirit who guides us into knowing the Truth.
@@bman5257and the rainbow being literally God's bow he places on the horizon.
@@GMurph2336 We are but the RC church does not follow the Bible (yes, they will argue they do ) but mocking the idea of biblical creationism (aka YEC) is a huge problem for Roman Catholics who firmly believe that Peter was the first Pope; the one entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of God. Many Catholics mock the view that the earth could be young and are embarrassed that anyone could believe that this is true. Well, St. Peter did!
Peter clearly believed that the flood of Noah was real. He wrote, "After being made alive, he (Jesus) went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits- to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water…" 1 Peter 3: 19-20 NIV (also 2 Peter 2:5)
More importantly, Peter warned that in the last days scoffers would come. What would they be scoffing? "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." 2 Peter 3:3-7.
They were not scoffing at the resurrection of Christ (as many do today), or at Christ's death (as Islam does), instead they were scoffing the idea that the world was formed out of water and was deluged by water (covered in water twice), exactly as the opening chapters of Genesis state. Yet many Roman Catholics scoff at this and so they are in effect scoffing at St. Peter and the word of God.
@@bman5257If there is no creation, there can be no Christ
Former Protestant, convert to Catholicism here, raised YEC and still trying to figure it all out. I really like Trent’s videos (and have been looking forward to his promised videos on Kolbe Creation Center for a while), but I have to confess, I’m a bit disappointed with this one; particularly the part about the Paluxty River prints. My parents took us to Glen Rose when I was a kid, and this “specimen” is a big deal to a lot of YECers, and, let’s be honest, if it was real, it should be a big deal. So to wrap up that part with a “scientist have decided that it’s just erosion” and move on, without any links to study’s or references, feels a bit simplistic and dismissive, especially if you were raised to be suspicious of most of the scientific community, raised as we were with tales of the canceling of scientists who questioned the evolutionary dogma, long before canceling became a culture-wide phenomena. I know debunking that particular argument was not the sole purpose of this video, but a link to a study or mention of a source would have much better than to just dismiss it and move on. Especially since something that looks so clearly like a human footprint could not possibly be attributed to simple erosion.
Turns out, it wasn’t erosion, it was most likely a carved hoax. I went looking for myself, and found this excellent study and breakdown of all the supposed prints attributes that indicate strongly that it was carved. Looking closely at it with their observations have convinced me, after all, that it is, in fact, a hoax. I confess myself disappointed and kinda sad to learn that… but also relieved to have an actual answer, and one that isn’t flippant, dismissive, condescending, or disrespectful.
Anyway, here’s the link for those interested: paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm
Incidentally, I am one of those (usually) silent readers who is really struggling to ascertain the truth in this area, and am open to what I was raised to believe being wrong… but the absolute nastiness and pettiness that I see in the comments on this video (and elsewhere in the whole evolution/creationist debate) are a HUGE deterrent to hearing what you all have to say. (I acknowledge that both sides are guilty of this.) A large percentage of the comments under this video are derisive, nasty, scornful and mocking, and all the unnecessary comments about Taylor Marshall and the other fellow are equally off-putting. I am not a particular Taylor Marshall fan myself, but the comments about him that have nothing to do with the subject of the video, are also a huge turn-off for someone like me who is honestly trying to weigh all of this and find the truth.
The presentation matters as much as the content. Just keep that in mind.
I'd just like to say it's so wonderful and refreshing to see a comment that's so open minded and, for lack of a better term, reasonable. I'd personally recommend you look into the work of Jonathan Pageau, and his brother Matthew Pageau's book "The Language of Creation" for an interesting take on the cosmology and symbolism in Genesis.
I really appreciate everything you had to say and also the way you have balanced the ease with which it APPEARS trent accepted the scientific conclusion of one scientist. Scientific conclusion are often wrong(maybe he researched it better that the video lets on, idk)
I haven’t seen any nasty comments though. Unless you mean getting a chuckle out of reading beowulf as a historical record. But anyway, i think trent was kind and treated the subject quite fairly. Except like i said the potential ease with which he accepted a scientific conclusion.
Thank you for posting your own findings!
That’s incredibly helpful for those of us learning about both sides of this topic.
What is YEC? And how did you get your link to stay in the comment? I've experienced several times providing a link to my comment causing the comment to get deleted. TH-cam seems very arbitrary regarding their policies.
It seem the video is attacking dinosaur existence in the middle ages, which is different from just dismissing YEC. You are correct regarding presentation of argument though.
Dappersaurus Rex in the thumbnail
CLEARLY you are unfamiliar with the compelling documentary “Dragonheart”.
Skills aquired at 6 used to the max
It´s rexin´ time.
@@HimekoIzayoi
You adapted that meme to a…T. Hehe
He looks like he want to offer me a tea whit milk
Now we have to defend mediaeval dinosaurs to own the modernists, it's all so tiresome
I've jousted medieval dinosaurs. Prove me wrong.
yep.. 5 steps forward, 20 steps back
Ironically, it's the modern obsession with historical deconstructionism that inspires this kind of young earth creationism.
Oh look, a Jesuit denying Catholic Dogma. In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet.
@@elcidcampeador9629 What? Do the charitable thing and tell me, what dogma did I deny? This is a pretty serious accusation. You should offer some explanation.
I was raised as a YEC (as a Protestant) and spent years debating evolution and defending the literalistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2.
What ultimately proved the biggest factor in changing my mind about my previous views was when I first encountered teaching about Genesis 1 and 2 from Catholic sources like Scott Hahn that looked at their covenant meaning and their place in salvation history.
I realized, to my shock, that I had been reading and defending Genesis for years, and had never learned a single thing about what those passages actually meant to the Faith.
I also realized that whether those passages were understood to be literal history or not, had basically no impact on understanding what they were meant to teach us.
Essentially I realized that I had spent so much effort on trying to defend God's word being literal, and I had completely and absolutely missed what God was intending to say.
From that point on I became convinced that the entire debate about literal young earth creation was a largely useless distraction. People can believe what they want in that regard. What actually matters is if you understand what the text MEANS.
I think the devil is perfectly happy to have young earth creationists, so long as being young earth creationists keeps them distracted from what God is actually saying to them.
Since Christ and St. Paul regarded "those passages" to be "literal history", that should matter to anyone who professes to be a Christian.
@@thomasjefferson6 or maybe Jesus just didn't think it was important enough to contradict what everyone thought and knew it would just become a big pointless distraction from his purpose and message.
As a former atheist turned Catholic, I can confirm that there are waaaaay better arguments against evolution that appealed to me than what Hall and Marshall were talking about.
Look up video interviews with David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer on the subject. The first crack in the armor against evolution for me was a TH-cam video titled “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” that was put out by The Hoover Institute.
After watching that I began looking up other videos by people in that video and the TH-cam algorithm showed me many other very reasonable and scientifically defendable stances AGAINST Darwinian Evolution as it is taught in schools.
As a believer I would not deny the possibility that God made a small miracle each time a new species appeared on earth. But I find it more reasonable that He created a universe where some laws allowed the appearance of new species from the existing ones. Such laws must not necessarily be identical to those produced by darwinists, but I will change them only for more complete and convincing ones.
Darwinian evolution, by itself, is considered incomplete even by many atheist evolutionary biologists. The Mendelian theory of genetics helped to fill in some of the gaps left by it, so that's another win for Catholics in my book. I also don't personally see many good reasons why God cannot work through something like evolution to achieve His goals.
@@Stormer13 The question is not "What could God have done" but "What did he say he did?" Read it for yourself.
Gus, exactly right. There's a lot of jumping through hoops on this topic. Yes there's a lot of holes in evolution. It doesn't follow to then craft a blended secular/religious narrative of creation. The entire secular narrative of creation is suspect.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 I don't believe God has to explicitly say everything He does just for Him to do it. That's putting an arbitrary limit on God just for the sake of the limit.
Unfortunately the young earth creationists make Christians look gullible and foolish. I’m almost 40 now and I remember when I was growing up this was one of the most convincing arguments kids used around the end of elementary school going into middle about why Christianity was just myths and fables. I was raised Catholic but in the southern United States around mostly Protestants. Most of the kids I went to school with were actually church going Christians, but by middle school most of us didn’t believe it, because of debates like these. Unfortunately my Church and the volunteers that taught are Bible study’s and CCD were not well equipped to help us answer these questions. I hope that the availability of TH-cam videos like these can help change the tides and make Christianity sound more reasonable to kids today that what I got growing up.
I’m sorry you feel like Christian’s look foolish when they defend a young earth. I wish evolution wasn’t pushed so hard and presented fairly instead of mocking young earthers and showing how there is evidence for both. But regardless of what society and culture say, the Bible seems to point to a young earth so that’s what I go with
@@pigglesworth1027 There's zero evidence for an old Earth. The theory of evolution is based on so many assumptions that can't be verified
@@pigglesworth1027 when I speak of a young earth, I mean life on earth. There is little evidence that (macro) evolution is scientifically accurate. I start with the Bible and then go to science. The Bible seems to suggest the earth and life on it is young. And there ways to interpret scientific data to support that.
Im not familiar with the scientific evidence for an old earth. Can you share some?
@@pigglesworth1027 I’m terribly sorry if I made it sound like YEC is dogma or biblical fact, I just meant it is the most common understanding when you read the Bible
You brought up some good points with good questions, but if you don’t want to talk about it that’s fine. If you change your mind, I’d love to talk about it! Have a good day, my friend!
@@pigglesworth1027 all good! I’m just an amateur with science, but I know a little. Yeah a lot of people are just so hostile to what they believe, no matter the topic. Atheists and Christians alike, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, theistic evolutionists and YEC… too many people are forgetting that everything we do is supposed to be done in love
Well, this is something new. I guess I was living under a rock. I had no idea this was even a "thing". Seems like a lot of energy wasted for nothing.
Ugh. I'm with you.
Evolutionists Darwinist is a big deal.
Right but one need not accept Neodarwinianism to accept or explain descent with modification or natural selection. This dynamic can still hold under a different metaphysical framework, imc
uding a theologically compatible one. Thus we come to theistic evolution.
Science is not beholden to any particular model so a modified evolutionary model. So invalidating one type of evolutionary model does not invalidate the entire dataset since alternatives exist, such as again, theistic evolution, also the currently popular extended evolutionary synthesis model, even a combination of these.
It is good to have alternatives though as it keeps the exploration of truth and refining the arguments and analysis where it might otherwise stagnate. Afterall, we can not account for unknown unknowns and usually only some known unknowns, so we must continually refine and reform our understanding from falsehoods here below.
But the evolution versus creation debate is a cultural artifact of the 1800s over categories that on both sides, are not really relevant anymore as our understanding from study, or magisterial guidance, has increased.
deepened rather
Even if dinosaurs did survive into historical times, that would not disprove the theory of evolution.
Paleontology tells us that many types of animals which still survive today - such as crocodiles and sharks - are as old as the dinosaurs but have not gone extinct. Sometimes species stick around for a long time.
Very good point. I thought the same thing.
I'm under the similar belief that dinosaurs aren't as old as we think but the argument doesn't debunk evolution
They evolved into chickens
Horseshoe crab!
Dinosaurs could appear today and it still wouldn’t disprove evolution, it would just mean that they’re extraordinarily successful as predators.
Slight correction- Coelophysis is pronounced “See-Lo-Fye-Sis” other than that, great work Trent!
Why not Che-láw-f'sis?
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH #283 “ The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.”
Is there a new editor at work? Something seems different with the style. I'm really liking it.
Yes, a new editor got hired a few weeks ago.
Yes
I'm partway through the video and just had to pause to shoot out the editor. Sick job, dude. These videos are slick.
What concerns me regarding theistic evolution is how its proponents almost always propose something adjacent to polygenism or "Adam was just the head of a tribe." I also find it incredibly find it quite frustrating to see St. Augustine propped up as if he is some precursor to theistic evolution. He believed nothing like that - in fact, he was the youngest earth creationist because he believed that the material world was created instantaneously. He could be wrong, but to use him to promote theistic evolution is disingenuous.
Thanks for the comment! -Vanessa
You should look into the Thomistic institute’s work on evolution. They argue that a historical Adam from whom everyone descended is compatible with the current scientific consensus, if I remember correctly.
@@calebadcock363how so?
@immaculata_marian I recommend “The Geneological Adam and Eve”, I think that you would find it an interesting read. It tackles a lot of this.
@@calebadcock363It is. Scientists even observed how with a recent study of birds speciation how the new genetic variation of bird (the first gen) only mated within themselves.
Hall recently interviewed Dr. Rômulo Carleial, a creationist who is also an evolutionary biology researcher at Kew, London, with his doctorate from Oxford. Will you be addressing the arguments presented in that video?
its aways weird to my brazillian ass to see foreigners talking about Dr Romulo
Oh man, were going to need Laura to come in with another love song to heal the rift between Dr T and Trent 🤣
POPE BENEDICT XVI: There “...is much scientific proof in favor of evolution which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life... In short, there is no necessary contradiction between scientific theories of evolution and Catholic belief. There is no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.”
That's why I love Pope Benedict so much
To quote Jimmy and Dom, “It’s always demons.”
Based fellow Mysterious World enjoyer
@@hacker4chn841 Likewise 😎
Good video. I’m a Trad and I sometimes watch both these guys but I don’t know why they feel the need to discuss a topic so far removed from their areas of expertise. Trent seems correct that the Church has no opinion here and as St Augustine points out she has no need to yoke her theology to an opinion about material science. The latter come and go.
Dragon time: my ancestor slew one in Scotland in the early twelfth century. It was three yards long and the color of an adder. It would open its jaws really wide and threaten peasants and livestock. It sounds like a saltwater crocodile that was really lost. I feel a bit bad for it but if there’s a dragon you’ve got to slay it. Noblesse oblige and all that.
To aaronsomerville2124: One of the wisest remarks I have seen related to this video! Thank you! I just wish that there was more caution about getting hitched to any "scientific consus". The Church got into trouble doing that before, when the scientific "consensus" was against Copernicus and was for Ptolemy.
That chinese beast looked nothing like a any dinosaur lol.
That beast looks more like a lizard than a dinosaur, yet he extrapolates to dinosaur
haha interesting take! -Vanessa
I grew up in a hard core literal 6 day creation church as I got older I accepted something like theistic evolution, until I went to college and took biology courses. Despite the professors being all in on evolution I came away believing that evolution has a lot of explanatory power, but little else. Macro level evolution seems unbelievably unlikely, but 6 day creation seems silly. I am left with this squishy, "God did it, but I don't know what IT is." position.
I think that’s very fair. The most honest answer is “we don’t know”.
Macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution + time. Most people can't actually grasp how long 100million years is.
Old Earth Creationism for the win! Basically that the Earth is billions of years old but macroevolution is false as God made all over long periods of time. Btw, I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, but leaning agnostic on this to be honest
@@SneakyEmu Most people can't grasp how unlikely an advantageous mutation is, and how unlikely that, in turn, makes any macro-evolutionary account that relies on the twin levers of random mutation and natural selection.
When I got to university, I found out that evolution had no explanatory power in specific cases (e.g. how the woodpecker evolved) or where new genetic information comes from. My biology profs were quite insistent that the real evidence for evolution comes from paleontology, while my geology/paleontology profs said that the main evidence for evolution comes from biology.
Saying "you're free to believe that" is true, if we remember we have a moral responsibility to seek and share the truth, not just what we wish were true. I don't think these conversations put enough stress on this point.
He is saying not to use stupid arguments - can't take us to truth
@@MarekGabro I agree, but I also go beyond that. If someone holds to young earth creationism out of a misplaced sense of piety, they're not fulfilling their moral duty to seek and share the truth.
Dear@@tafazziReadChannelDescription, well, evolution is rather a peripheral point, and not even dogma.
I personally would prefer that Catholics study what the CCC says about blessings, and learn more about the various kinds of dignity of human beings. And perhaps spend some time in meditation on how we need to honor the pope, and not be judgmental, even if we don't fully understand what he is doing.
@susand3668 "the truth will set you free" it says. Church fathers were intelligent people, though truly about what they know, discussed instead of blind following. They followed after understanding why it is good. God gave us intellect and we have to use it
Our Truth is completely different from Science's material presumptions if it doesn't place God at the center of everything.
Love the dinosaur thumb nail! Gotta love Haggisaurus Rex!! 😂🤣❤️🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸
hahaha! It's a good one! -Vanessa
As a geoscientist I am completely baffled how young earth creationists can ignore so many different sources of evidence for an old Earth. There is always a lot of talk about fossils, but what about the different geochronological methods such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, luminescence dating, and electron spin resonance dating which all show an old Earth.
for radiocarbon dating you need to know the proportion at the start to know how many years passed, so it's useless in determining something of old
Don't worry the commenters are already here to enlighten you
You are 100% right. To quibble around, you might add as methods of dating those involving radioisotopes and their decaying products with half-lives much longer than 5700 years. They help us date geological strata, and fossils contained in them, which are millions of years old.
Allow me to say as a Christian and a scientist (certainly not the best around, but there you are) I am *overwhelmingly* baffled by young earth creationists.
Creationism is a relatively recent movement born among protestants in England as reaction to the theory of evolution of Darwin, but it basically died out in its motherland. Instead, it flourished in the USA.
While there are some "black sheep" in any family, like those of the Kobe center, you will not find educated Catholics in Europe who vocally support Creationism. We have learnt the lesson that an intelligent person such as St. Augustine taught us in the V century, i.e. 1500 years ago.
@@snokehusk223, the calibration curves from three ring data show when the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio change, so this is not a problem. And this still leaves other methods such as luminescence dating which work on different principals than radiocarbon dating, not to mention dendrochronology itself.
@@Hafstrom1845 atmospheric? what does the atmosphere have with decay of organic matter?
as for other ones I am not familiar
It's pretty easy to tell that dragons, in Europe at least, are based on snakes and lizards. Dragon comes from a word that actually means "very large snake". You gotta ignore quite a bit of evidence to claim that these are depictions of dinosaurs
As I said elsewhere, the only dinosaur I can think of at the moment, which even vaguely resembles the shape of a classic medieval dragon, would be our updated reconstructions of Spinosaurus. At least that dinosaur has a massive size, a long skinny body, a paddle-like tail, relatively short hind-limbs, large clawed forelimbs, a crocodilian-like jaw, and extra decorative features like the sail. Those features do at least come together to yield something, which resembles how the classic dragon usually has a more serpentine and lizard/crocodile-like frame with extra embellishments.
So while it lacks wings, I could at least hypothesize see Spinosaurus standing in for some kind of flightless marsh/river dragon, due to its body shape and mostly aquatic lifestyle. However, all the other dinosaurs seem to barely look anything like a medieval dragon, unless one were to create a chimera of features from different dinosaurs (and possibly pterosaurs).
@@markcobuzzi826 definitely not pterosaurs, they would've been described as birds or bats more like due to their appearance. And even our modern reconstruction of spinosaurus is a stretch
It makes way more sense to compare them to snakes, lizards, and other reptiles. That's actually why they're also called Wyrms, which is derived from the same word as our word Worm 🪱.
I always figured dragons were demons whom St George did battle with.
@lupea8079 It typically was. Dragons were associated with the Devil. In fact an old Benedictine Prayer refers to Satan as a dragon.
@@johnhoelzeman6683
That was my main intended point, how even comparing one of the more bizarre dinosaurs like Spinosaurus to dragons would be a stretch. And I meant to suggest that pterosaurs too look almost nothing like dragons/wyverns aside from their wings (and sometimes a long diamond-tipped tail), requiring one to amalgamate features from less related archosaurs before said pterosaur could start to even resemble one.
Editor earning that pay!
Also I recognize you dropped the SSPX source for traditionalists to refer to because they would otherwise dismiss you just like Taylor Marshall made that comment about Catholic Answers.
Someday I hope you take on the task of answering some of the SSPX arguments. Their presence online is over-representative. Many normal Catholics are either unfamiliar with what they are or unfamiliar with what kind of claims they make.
I was wondering why Trent was referring people to SSPX stuff. Thanks.
SSPX here, and i find YEC ridiculous.
Also, it seems to me to be a very anglo-saxon thing (SSPX or not), and especially americans, because of protestant influence i guess.
Here in France, it's nearly unexistent, and was totally unexistent before the internet...
@@jeanacremann2629 OK, but YEC is a belief that the Church has shown the faithful can hold. Believing that NO mass is heresy with no valid consecration of the Eucharist and that you can't go to Tridentine Latin masses outside of SSPX because their hosts might be comingled with NO host is very clearly not a view one can hold and be considered within the Church. Also participating in a mass of a priest not incardinated to a bishop with canonical mission is helping support an illicit mass and is schismatic.
I'm sorry, but no one reading the Beowulf poem would ever think that Grendel is a T-Rex. Anyone reading the poem sees that Grendel is a humanoid giant that is explicitly described as a descendant of Cain.
Not to mention that T Rex fossils are only found in North America
Props to you for being willing to engage with this argument. I spent about 5 minutes scrolling through comments on this video and the one you mention at the end, and I find it just so disheartening. People seem so angry and tribalistic. I don't know, it can be so frusturating to hear people debate this as if it's the dogma Christianity stands or falls on. Yes, we should believe true things, wherever that takes us, but this should not be made to be the issue that makes or breaks religion for people.
Thank you for this comment! -Vanessa
It should be make or break because many errors have come from evolutionist theory. man can change DNA, which had metastasized into the transgender argument / subjective truth
Well the reason it is often tribalistic is because there are theological implications that arise as a consequence of accepting either macroevolution or the literal 6-day creation.
If you accept macroevolution, then you have to explain how death entered the world before sin and you still have to admit that humans were not created by an evolutionary process, but instead made in God's image from the dust of the ground and a spirit. You also have to explain how it have never rained before God made the Garden of Eden. Instead of a million little miracles, why not just take the account literally and have one big miracle?
If you accept the literal 6-day creation account, you don't have any theological issues at all.
Macroevolution, and it's theistic offshoot, is very weakly supported from a fossil record standpoint. It's basically an insult to God as a designer to attribute the beauty and awesome complexity of life as just a sequence of trial and error based on carefully crafted rules, like an AI generated image vs one drawn by an artist. Besides, God created everything "good" and macroevolution rejects that in favor of natural selection which implies defects.
Not to mention that the reality we live in has suffered the effects of the fall and is not the same as it was created.
Wish Trent tackled more reasonable creation arguments instead of the weakest ones he can find.
Agreed. He does not take it seriously enough. No young earth creationist bases their beliefs on random drawings from around the world of dinosaurs, so it is a straw man to hold that up and make a whole video on it
He hasn’t given any indication he won’t address more sophisticated arguments. The point of this video is to address a particular one that isn’t serving evangelism very well.
Targeting the weakest arguments of your opposition
Now who else argues like that? 🤔
He's not saying young earth creationism isn't a valid opinion. He's tackling these arguments for it specifically (according to his opening statements). They are gaining popularity so he's warning against using them. He's not debating the overall validity of young earth creationism
@@antoniotodaro4093 How is this targeting? There’s a specific point to this video.
I really wish the young earthers would give up on this argument. Its embarrassing and giving ammo to athiests to reject the Gospel.
Eh, you can make a strong scientific case for the young earth. And the Bible *seems* to suggest the young earth. I won’t give up on what I think the Bible teaches because some atheist scientists are pushing evolution.
Atheists will always find a reason to reject the gospel, it doesn’t matter what we tell them about evolution. If not evolution, it’s Gods morality. Or it’s giving up their own lifestyle. Or it’s materialism. There’s always a reason to reject Christ, so no need to give up the fight against evolution
@@timothyvenable3336That's a problem. Why is there a "fight" against evolution? This is science we're discussing. We hurt our cause by attacking evolution, and even if we prove it's false, it won't help us in converting people so what's the point? lol
Also, it's not only atheist scientists, but also the vast majority of christian and catholic scientists you're going against here.
If evolution is not true, obviously it should not be believed. It is attacked because many Christians don't believe it is true. Evolution is the cornerstone of the secular worldview. It is their creation myth. It also happens to be scientifically weak despite the number of people who believe it.
@@helovaz97 I wouldn’t say the “vast majority” of Christian scientists…
But I agree salvation and evangelism has nothing to do with evolution. But we still need to have integrity with the word of God. There is a scientific case for a young earth (against evolution) but evolution is so mainstream and so popular that anything against it is brushed off as pseudoscience… dispute the fact evolution is 20% science and 80% theory based guesswork
@@timothyvenable3336, you may be able to make a tentative argument for YEC, but not a strong scientific one.
One of my major stumbling blocks regarding the theory of Evolution and trying to reconcile it with the catholic faith is the following. If I were to summarize baseline what each fundamental doctrine of creation tells us, I would say this. If we accept Evolution as the fundamental doctrine of creation It seems we should what thou wilt to get ahead. Manipulate, lie, Deceive. Do whatever it takes to get ahead. Make sure it's your genes passed along and that's all that matters. Oppress those whom you deem to be weaker than you and use them only for yourself centered gainful purposes. Treat with cruelty those who do not bow down to your ideas and what you deem to be right. Gain as much power as possible regardless of whom you hurt. Destroy your enemies and anybody who gets in your way. Create an environment of fear to get others to be subservient to you. The theory of evolution inspires self-exaltation and making oneself their own god. Those who get in the way of "progress" need to be shut down and eliminated. The story of Genesis, if taken at face value inspires a recognition that we are not God. And that we have fallen from great heights. The story of Genesis if taken at face value makes us recognize that we are fallen human beings who without the grace of God
are never going to come back to the heights from which we have fallen. The story of Genesis tells us that perhaps we shouldn't make ourselves our own gods but rather be obedient to the One who truly is God. The story of Genesis, if taken at face value tells us that God truly is a loving God who made a perfect universe free from defect sin disease, etc. and never intended us to be fighting for survival, killing and destroying others so that we may ourselves get ahead. The story of Genesis makes us realize that Cane murdering his brother Abel really was a horrible act and was not just one of millions of that we could have presumed to have happened between many sub human almost human beings (granted I suppose they did not have rational human souls yet and would never see the beatific vision or know God) The story of Genesis if taken at face value makes us recognize why we need a redeemer. Why we needed Christ himself to come and repair the damage done by Adam and Eve by original sin. The story of Genesis tells us that we really do have a loving God.
who would it go so far as to send his only begotten Son to become man like us and to suffer and die for us and to give us hope that we might obtain the beatific vision in the future. He didn't create a universe where He himself treated suffering and death as his mechanism for improvement. Rather He took on suffering and death so that we might live. The theory of evolution tells us to sacrifice others so that we might live. These two theories about where we came from inspire completely different mindsets and I do not see how there is any getting away from it. We can talk about scientific evidence all day long, but I think if we are being honest with ourselves these two origin stories fundamentally inspire completely opposite mindsets. If we truly are being Christ like I don't see how we could ever come to the conclusion that God would have created the universe in such a despicable, ugly, and disgusting way as purported by the theory of evolution, which, by the way, seems to change over time but we treat it as dogmatic anyway.
I'd like to offer a few thoughts with regards to your comment that may be of help.
Right off the bat, I'd say that the mechanism of evolution, which is species adapting to their environment over time, has little to do with the metaphysical and philosophical theories that sprang up around it (eugenics, the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Malthus, etc.). The mechanisms of science and the metaphysics of materialism, while many people conflate them, are only loosely related. Many of the moral issues that you mentioned come from a certain philosophical worldview that erroneously uses the idea of evolution to justify power-seeking aims.
Secondly, I'd also like to stress that evolution includes as much co-operation as it does competition. Yes, animals do fight with each other for survival and to pass on their genes, but in the big picture there's also immense co-operation in whole ecosystems. We see what disasters occur when we meddle with ecosystems today. Studies of plants show that they work together, that different species will help one another, and that bigger trees will even release nutrients to feed smaller trees. I think that much of the "survival of the fittest" rhetoric around evolution is a result of the hyper-competitive capitalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, where to be a successful businessman meant screwing over your competition and seeking "profit" at all costs. On the other hand, the communism of the Soviet Union led to false beliefs like Lysenkoism, and their poor understanding of agriculture led to mass famine. The guiding philosophy of the day shapes how we look at science.
Similar to what the other responder brought up, I think you might be confusing “evolution” with “eugenics”, and the latter even has elements which contradicts the former. To elaborate below…
When evolution driven by natural selection occurs (or artificial selection like when humans create distinct dog breeds), all that is stated is how certain genes/traits more beneficial to an organism’s reproductive success in its immediate environment are more likely to be passed down to the next generation. Thus, the frequencies of certain genes in a population may change. And when a new gene/trait is introduced to the population via events like mutations, that new gene/trait may become more prominent in the population over the generations, depending on how beneficial it is to “fitness” (reproductive). When a population gets split into two distinct groups facing different environmental pressures, then the two subpopulations may change in different directions, possibly to the degree that they become two different species and/or can no longer breed between one another. By extension, it is hypothesized that most of the species on Earth may have common biological ancestors including humans (though it neither affirms nor denies that humanity’s creation has additional qualities distinct from other animals like a rational spiritual soul).
What is does NOT assert is that organisms can somehow become an “ultimate life form” (since traits beneficial in one environment/niche can be a detriment in others), that any one species is more “evolved” than another (from a strictly biological perspective), that selection has the inherent goal of yielding a more biologically complex species, whether some survival strategies are acceptable by human morality, and whether or not humans have additional dimensions governing them (like religion, objective morality, etc.). And similar to what the other person pointed out, natural selection can just as easily promote simpler organisms as more complex ones, or more altruistic/cooperative/monogamous behaviors as more selfish/malevolent/non-monogamous ones. I think a better characterization is that, when natural selection is left purely to its own devices, it is no more morally good/bad than a rainstorm or tornado. Yet it makes no comment on its own, whether or not humans should hold themselves to a higher standard than those amoral forces.
Now, once we get into the topic of “eugenics”, that is the philosophy/pseudoscience which seems to yield all the problems you point out. That is the one which asserts humanity should only govern themselves by a particularly ruthless version of “survival of the fittest”. Also, it actually contradicts evolutionary science by insinuating that humanity can make itself the equivalent to an “ultimate life form” or inherently superior biological species, by this process.
@@Crime_Mime I trust in God's word.
@@matthewmascarenas6307 As do I. The core question is, how can we best interpret God's word, and in what way?
@Skin_Man In the case of Genesis I think the only way one can reasonably interpret it is the plain obvious literal historical sense. The only reason I can think that some of us choose not to see it in the plain and obvious, sense presented in scripture
is.because we have put too much faith and trust
in human reason. Perhaps this is a perfect example of where pride leads us where mere creatures with limited human intelligence are literally telling an infinite being who already revealed to us how he made the universe how things actually happened. Unfortunately, instead of taking an infinite being at his word, we seem to be more apt to think we can reason our way back to how things happened at the beginning. Also one of the things evolution, without a doubt, undermines is sin and it's effects. Sin without a doubt darkens the human intellect. I think that evolution is ultimately an example of a major lie God has handed us over to because we have failed to love the Truth.
All month I’ve been thinking about “that one Catholic guy that doesn’t pray the luminous mysteries on Thursday, whatever happened to him” I now know and have the name to put to the face 😅
Is it possible that Medieval people found some dinosaur bones and drew these drawings as a imagining of what dinosaurs looked like?
I am a protestant turned Catholic. ICR and AIG both played massive roles in my faith years ago. They helped take the spiritual mental ascent of belief in Jesus while living a heathen lifestyle and challenged me with really real world implications of the faith. Having to reconcile and root faith in reality caused me to become very serious about the every other aspect of the faith. God became a reality, Christ a real person and not a mythical example pious living, the scriptures became reliable, the church and other doctrines were no longer up for grabs and at the mercy of subjective wants and inclinations. I praise God for young earth creationism and to the day, after many interactions with nay sayers, have never heard anyone give convincing proof to the contrary... and if I'm open minded and submitted to Christ enough to go from Catholic hating fundamentalism to being Catholic and submitting to Christ's teaching even at the expense of comfort, close relationships, and ego... then that's really saying something. By the way, I absolutely love Catholic answers and se it as an invaluable resource. However, this is one topic I think, at least Trent, a man who has helped me tremendously to see the truth, has got wrong.
If you hold to a Young Earth on grounds of piety, you're wrong. It's not a belief that nakes you a better Christian, it's just not part of divine Revelation.
If you hold to it based on science, you're still wrong but it's far easier to point you to the facts.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription weird, I never indicated I held to it to be pious. Or that it's divinely revealed. I think you responded to the wrong comment.
@@menoftheclothKTOG great, if your concerns are just in the scientific sphere that means we share our interpretation of the magisterium on this issue.
I'm Happy to talk about science if you want
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Though it's not dogmatically defined by the church I don't pit science against the creator of the creation. However, your right that my concerns are the lack scientific evidence for macro evolution. Whatever the truth of God's handiwork is, I have never heard a convincing argument that can't be easily dispelled by either evidence, logic or both.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I do work so replies may be a day or two apart.
I was listening to this during work, filling out a form and as I heard the argument of Kennedy that dragons were dinosaurs that survived my brain stopped working and couldn’t remember the date for a couple of minutes a I just stared at the paper blankly. Literally broke my brain.
Don’t worry I paused, dated the form correctly and restarted the video.
If creationists are accepting dragons based on drawings, they will also have to accept centaurs. Plenty of drawings of those around. And, after all, ;why would someone draw a creature that didn't exist?
I think the idea is that minotaurs and phoenixes (phoenixi?) clearly have origins in certain cultures. But just about every culture on the planet tells stories of giant terrifying lizard monsters.
@@Pyr0Ben Which does not address the point. The point is creationists offering drawings as evidence of reality. Why some drawings and not others?
1 clement talks about a literal Phoenix
@@SLERKED Lots of people talked about centaurs. Lots of people talked about unicorns. The history of humans is filled with stories of fantastical animals. There are still people who believe the L:och Ness monster exists. As I said, if you're relying on pictures drawn by humans as evidence, you're going to have to accept a lot more than dragons.
@@throckmortensnivel2850 clement was a direct disciple to Peter and Paul
Would this damage the foundations of Christianity if it was mythical?
The Cambodian thing might be a pangolin. The dragons around the world is also similar to how the cyclops was introduced into myth: they found fossils and got scared. The cyclops itself is a tuskless mammoth head. There are several ancient writings about finding huge bones of dragons, but never totally seeing a dragon, until you get to komodo dragons and monitor lizards.
The dragons slayer legend in my opinion was always influenced by slavic Yarilo myths (as in slavic countries the two are super closely knit together) and the dragon was probably a croc based on the region where the real st. George lived, or atleast close enough.
But young earth creationists always amase me, not as much as mormons but they are less imaginatively qeird in retteling the real gospels.
@counsel of Trent - how about Adam and Eve. Do you believe they are real people? a lot of modernist Catholics think they are not. But that creates a lot of problems like Jesus is mentioned as the second Adam. These are things which I feel makes it difficult to reconcile the creation account in Genesis and macro evolution (all species including humans evolved from a single cell).
The video description does not list the stuff Trent said at the end of the video
Just fixed this. -Thomas
The “AI generated” on the impeccably crafted images of dinosaurs and humans living together was very helpful, I wouldn’t have known they were edited otherwise.
It’s funny because the papacy is also a major stumbling block for Hall and Marshall!
The Catholic faith seems to be a stumbling block for Pope Francis and 80% of the bishops
@@elcidcampeador9629 >the YEC is also against the church hierarchy
wooow sooo not surprised!
@@elcidcampeador9629 ah, another who has a stumbling block with the papacy and the magisterium. But yes, tell me as a lay magistrate why it’s a stumbling block for Pope Francis?
Marshall is not a sedevacantist.
False. The papacy is not a stumbling block for him. He is not a sedevacantist.
Trent you should have Hugh Owen on he is very intelligent and friendly
Thank you for the suggestion!! -Vanessa
Not gonna lie, I love Dr. Tay! I was a biology major back in the day though so there’s no way I could ever be sold by YEC. In fact, when I was an edgy college student who would argue with people about this nonsense, this is an argument I came across from none other than Kent Hovind, crazy evangelical tax evader. He’s insane and runs a YEC theme park in Florida called “dinosaur adventure land.” Look him up, it’ll keep you busy for an afternoon 😂
It's in Alabama now, not Florida. It's kind of tacky to identify him as a "evangelical tax evader". It's really just ad hominem garbage by attacking someone's character just because you disagree with him. Attack his arguments not his character. I bet you can't, that's why you resort to name calling
I’m not really a younger creationist but I think trends arguments a little weak. What I would point out is that he says the fuse drawings of the ancient from medieval drew barely resemble the dinosaurs we know today. But the dinosaurs we know today are just guesses as to what they actually look like. Often we found bones that were incomplete there’s only one complete set of T-Rex bones today for example. Using that logic how would they know what one look like?
Not them again
lol my thoughts exactly
@@scrapdog2113 Taylor Marshall is excellent ‘most of the time. So is Trent Horn but the few disagreements always get blown up- it sucks
@@ButterCupLetsgoColts he payed a guy to throw a statue of Mary into the Tiber river, he should be arrested
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Statue of Mary? Not sure what you saw but that was a statue of the IDOL Pachumama…? Idk what you’re on to think that was a statue of Mary dude
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Look it up
I love being a traditional catholic and it makes me sad the main trad faces we have on TH-cam are literally this out to lunch. Thanks for this Trent.
Walk the TALK challenge The Kolbe Center for a Debate!! How about challenging Robert Sungenis; no monkeys in my ancient ancestors!!
@ejaquilio41
Sungenis might have found a secure source of income, and he surely won't let it go...
The case for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is laughably weak.
We have stronger evidence for evolution than for the Resurrection
This is always a breath of fresh air. I'm a homeschooler and I'm surrounded by young earth people. I understand why the Church doesn't have a stance on the age of the earth, but I am glad that Catholics, overall, are not young earth.
I’m a Catholic and I’m a young earth creationist. I just wish more Catholics would realize the Church allows for that.
@@Marilyn-np2xh she allows for it if it's a belief held on scientific grounds. If you believe in it because you think that's what Divine Revelation says, you're not listening to the church.
Tafazzi, you apparently didn’t listen to what Trent said at the beginning of the video. ‘The Catholic Church does NOT have a teaching about the theory of evolution. You can be a faithful Catholic and deny or accept the theory of evolution.’
You are adding your own opinion to that. I will listen to the teaching of the Church and not you.
@@Marilyn-np2xh she teaches it's not a subject that's contained in divine revelation.
In paragraph 283 she explicitly defers to science for these investigations.
You *are* free to disagree on evolution, if it's on intellectually honest grounds. Saying "I don't believe it because I don't think it's compatible with the Faith" just proves you're not listening to the church, who is the interpreter of Divine Revelation. If you instead say "I don't believe it because I think this non-evolutionary model of the world fits the evidence better", you'd not be doing anything wrong, even though I'd bet there is a mistake along the way there.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription "...she[the Church] allows for it if it's a belief held on scientific grounds. If you believe in it because you think that's what Divine Revelation says you're not listening to the church."
So you actually think that the Church bans people from believing in young Earth creationism based on the Bible, and that the Church only allows people to hold that belief if they claim it's based on science? I'm pretty sure you invented that idea on the spot for that comment, since there's no evidence or precedent for suggesting that the Church verifies the reasons for your scientific beliefs.
The Sinclair Oil Brontosaurus proves that dinosaurs are alive in the 21st century! 🦕
Don't let any modernist materialist tell you otherwise!
Maybe I'm missing something Trent but I can't find the link to Father Robinson's podcast that you mentioned at the end.
Just updated that! -Thomas
I'd like to make a general comment about the new editing. I'm glad lots of people seem to enjoy it. I've enjoyed the show and contributed on Patreon for a few years. I still really love the show, Trent was instrumental in my conversion, but I will admit the new editing isn't really for me personally. I don't do social media or tiktok or much of the modern short form stuff. The new editing style with the constant frame changes, pop ups, clips jumping in, etc feels very frantic and a bit jarring to me. It feels like it is catering a bit to shorter attention spans. It probably would have been a turn off for me when I first found the show. Like I said, I'll still be watching and I hope the changes are a net positive for everyone. I just wanted to provide some honest feedback.
Thank you for this feedback! We appreciate you! - Vanessa
If anything, the beauty and history of evolutionary biology is evidence of God’s creativity
Oh yes, all that death and mutation really speaks to the beauty of God's design
I always thought the same.
@@elcidcampeador9629 your assumption seems to assume that these things you mentioned are “bad” or that the universe “should’nt” be that way. But since you did not bring the universe into being. How could you possibly be in a position to know that?
As a long time listener, I'd reevaluate the need for so many sound effects. To the people who consume your content audio-only, it's incredibly distracting!
Totally agree
Well done. Science and Religion ought to complement each other with their own expertise.
This one video was well balanced, and by also calling out the incoherent commenters makes it worth to promulgate it impartially. Keep up the good work backed up with the Church's authoritative facts, and avoid any personal ambiguous opinion.
Counsel of Trent does a good job of highlighting the vast differences between Catholics and Protestants, don’t you agree?
@@bobinindiana
I did write well done and well balanced, didn't I?
I had to add to "avoid any personal ambiguous opinions", 'cuz sometimes he has had some minor "slurs" that didn't entice its promulgation.
Calvin Smith with AiG Canada has listed several drawings worldwide of dinosaurs 🦕 so maybe the subject is debatable. The vestibule of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, features a huge long Chinese-style dragon suspended from the ceiling. The Museum also has a huge complete dinosaur skeleton.
@@bobinindiana
The whole point is not if dinosaurs existed, but if humans lived together with them
Perhaps you should go watch Kent Hovind's videos too, he also did a good job at showing skeletons of giant people! 😂
@@therealong Why do you make fun of Kent Hovind, a man broken by prison?
Darwinist teach dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and man evolved from molecules a couple of million years ago.
Genesis teaches that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour days and that Adam named the dinosaurs 🦕
I do think that most YECs believe that dinosaurs are very very rare in history, because most or all were killed in the flood. The real thing that needs to be proved is that dinosaurs existed pre-noah and dragons are based on legends passed down of their existence. If you're gonna tackle this issue you really should look into the Loch Ness monster or Mokele-mbembe.
I am unsure on my stance on YEC. I just find this stuff interesting and I find a lot of arrogance on both sides.
Probably many dinosaurs 🦕 died in the Ice Age but those not in the area of the Ice Age would have lived on to die out of other causes. Some must have died recently because the flesh on their bones is sometimes elastic.
@@bobinindiana That's a good point. That's some of the most convincing evidence. There is a protein found in their bones that should have rotted away, but is still there. I think someone made a response to that, but I did not find it particularly convincing.
@@tylerbrock6047 Thank you for the kind words! I’m elderly so the correct details on this are beyond my knowledge so please post more if you have time.
I stopped listening to Taylor Marshall, when he started bashing catholicism NOM, and anyone who didn't go to latin mass was not catholic, and was repugnant. After much bashing of the pope etc.. and his weird conspiracy theories I had enough. Thanks Trent for truly respecting NOM and latin mass, and the faith in general. Godbless
Definitely improved visuals with the editing but maybe dial down the sound effects a touch. Gets distracting after a while.
I do think many Catholics automatically "bend the knee" to science because we are so afraid of being like those "fundamentalist prots", and this can get us into a spirit that almost over-rationalizes the faith and makes us scared of our own tradition. These specific young earth creationist arguments are indeed silly, but there are some rather compelling ones out there (e.g. consensus of the Father, this being a matter of scriptural interpretation per the genealogies, etc). This overrationalization can even lead people into unsuspecting heresy, like the idea of Adam not being our true ancestor.
Heard! Thank you for your feedback! -Vanessa
Adam isn't - God made man and woman first in Ch 1, then Adam and Eve later in Ch 2. Adam is more about hebrew ancestry than all of humanity.
@@InhabitantOfOddworldAll of Genesis is more concerned with the history of the Hebrews. I can’t believe more people don’t recognize this. It doesn’t even attempt to explain where gentiles come from. It feels more like a preamble to Exodus than its own book sometimes.
@@seantolson6223
I agree. That's my point RE Adam. He's the progenitor of the Hebrews, not all humanity. The OP recites a common erroneous assumption, but such is the problem when universalist Christians try to sell an ethnic Jewish religion to the whole world.
Gentiles are just among the non-descript humans created in Ch 1 prior to Ch 2 where Adam and Eve were created specifically, apart from prior humanity, in the GoE.
Adam and Eve are the first parents of humanity according to dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. There is no wiggle room on that one. To claim otherwise is heretical.
Good video! Just a small correction: Coelophysis is usually pronounced see-lo-FY-sis, rather than ko-LA-fuh-sis.
I remember more than a year ago watching a Taylor Marshall bible study video and being blown away by him casually discussing dinosaurs co-existimg with humans. It's embarassing for someone with an academic knowledge of scripture not knowing basic history and makes religion look worse to unbelievers.
Or basic biology 🦕🦖
Do you feel like some young earth Catholics are converts who can't shake that last bit of Bible-is-literal Protestantism?
Interesting perspective! -Vanessa
Isn't literal interpretation of the Bible a Catholic thing? Real presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, papal succession, et cetera.
No, the creature in question is not rhinoceros, since it's tail is way to big and it does have a spike on it's tail, as is clearly seen. What do you mean "it's head is too small"? The Stegosaurus had a very small head compared to it's body.
I actually thought it's possible triceratops or one of its relatives like the ceratops could be the ancestor of the rhinoceros. One part of Kennedy and Taylor's theory has a big hole...most drawings of depictions of dragons would depict them as meat eaters. Stegasaurus was an herbivore.
Trent can you tell us more about the early Church writings on the wall on prayer to Mary and saints? You had a discussion with Allie recently but it seems it was edited/ cut out.
debate Taylor marshal
Not sure if such an engagement could even be considered a debate. It'd be like a PhD candidate debating a first grader
What happened to Trent’s nice set? What’s with this blank white background?
_"but __10:27__ scientists have now shown that the __10:28__ alleged human Footprints at the plexy __10:30__ tracks only look human because of __10:33__ erosion"_
Have they _shown_ it, as in replicating a foot print from some known fossil species, and speeding up erosion to get at least 10 % results replicating the Paluxy footprints?
Or have they _hypothesised_ that this is what happened, and you overdo their epistemic weight?
The latter
@@thehitomiboy7379 I'd tend to agree, just would like to know if Trent Horn does so too!
4:44 Especially as no Stegosaurus fossils have been found in Cambodia ...
How many fossils of animals having lived 1000 years ago do you find in Cambodia at all? A Stegosaurus or a dog or a monkey having died in Cambodia 1000 years ago would have quickly disintegrated. The existence of lots of fossils is actually one argument for the unique conditions of the Flood. Conditions that did not persist in Cambodia 1000 years ago.
there are many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago, even people that pretend to do science related to the flood admit that there are more recent fossils and that the record does not stop at whenever they date the flood.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription _"many fossils and bones datable to 1000 years ago"_
From the Cambodian rain forest? From Monsoon areas?
Taylor Marshall is peak cringe
Good argument
We have to consider the sources for proof of evolution and for creation. Picking and choosing from the scriptures is not as appealing to me as it was before. If Jesus hadn't mentioned the flood, I could think of it as allegorical or mythological. Matthew 24:37-39
There is not a rule such as "if Jesus refers to something which was common knowledge at His time, then that thing is literal". Jesus also refers to Jonah, whose book is labeled as a literary work even by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
@@Zimisce85 that's my rule. I think a flood makes more sense than a comet and dinosaurs turning into birds over 66.6 million years too. And I don't think Jesus would mention Jonah or the Flood in such a way if they did not happen. It would be deceptive. There were plenty of parts of the old testament he could have referenced, but he chose those.
Trent and team, the editing is stellar this is a perfect direction for the channel to go. Wonderful work guys I'm excited for what's next
We should be skeptical of evolution, no reason we should bend the knee to modern science when the modern science also teaches men can be women
It seems like there's good evidence for something of a middle ground.
There's decent evidence for micro evolution, which means that macro evolution is technically possible. However, there's little actual evidence for it, and some good evidence against.
There was a study done on the DNA of hundreds of species stored in a DNA bank in.. I think Norway. They found that most of the species alive today showed a similar number of mutations. (not exactly mutations, but I forget what they're called.) the problem with this is that, if current evolutionary theory is true, animals with a shorter breeding cycle like ants or flies should show significantly more mutations due to their shorter life cycle and more rapid breeding (meaning more chances for mutation.) they don't, which indicates that the current understanding of evolution is either significantly incomplete, or just wrong.
Another major thing against the current theory is what happened after mass extinction. If the current theory was true, then after a mass extinction you would expect to see the slow redevelopment of diverse and specialized life. That's not what we see though. The fossil record indicates a near instant, spontaneous explosion of complex life after each mass extinction. The current theory can't explain that.
I'm not saying evolution is false, but if it's true, our understanding of it is woefully incomplete.
This comment is the epitome of "defend medieval dinosaurs to own the modernists." Modern science may be wrong about some things but it's not wrong about *everything*, and admitting that does mean you are "bending the knee to modern science". IF that were the case then the next time you get sick, instead of going to a hospital you should have someone drain you of your blood, since that's that they did as early as a couple hundred years ago (the idea being to get the bad blood causing the sickness out of you). "Modern science isn't right about everything, therefore the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived with humans" is an embarrassment argument.
there's better evidence for evolution than for the resurrection, a rational person that accepts the latter should accept the former, too.
Tbh I’m not sure if I would classify those two together, since biology clearly teaches two clear genders (intersex are not a new gender, but a special condition where the person isn’t fully XX or XY. And even that is not applicable to the trans movement nowadays).
@@samueljennings4809 yeah, if we are to use technical language, the human species has two sexes. The concept of "intersex" is "any person who has a disease or condition that gravely impacts the sex-dependant structures and characteristics of the body", it's defined in reference to the binary that always applies in humans.
Honestly, I think Trent just doesn't like the political inconvience of young earth creationists. The idea that dinosaurs lived with humans for a time seems more reasonable than every culture across the globe just happened to dream up the samne mythical creature. As far as to whether such art depicts a certain type of dinosaur, I would leave for an expert. But if a piece of aert has to resemble a dinosaur perfectly to be counted, then many peoples alsop never seen a human before. I find the disnmissal on grounds of lack of anatiomical accuracy to be asburd. Maybe there are some evolutionary explainations such art, but you shouldn't dismiss young earth theories out of hand.
Well it could be argued, and most likely true that YEC has contributed to a lot of smarter people leaving the Church, or not willing to join. There does not seem to be much of a benefit to it these days.
@@josephmoore5949 Highly dubious claim that those people are "smart". You can say "educated", but you surely can't say "smart". Intelligence hasn't been the main factor in education for over half a century now.
they didn't dream up the dragons from nothing, fossils are found all over the world and it's not that hard to see that those bones belonged to big, lizardy things.
I wouldn't say dinosaurs lived with humans but ancient people likely discovered bones of prehistoric animals and believed that they were dragons, giants, griffins, etc
@@BahamutZero09 Fair point. Although I thought you had to dig fairly deep to find fossils? I don't know how deep ancient people could dig, but they were pretty smart, so I wouldn't dismiss it.
Crazy people say crazy things, whether they believe in God or no. As a dinosaur I hate all changes but feel snug and happy in Lough Ness. If you could reduce the number of tourists that would be nice. I did promise Columba that I would never harm a human again, but I didn’t realize how harassed I would be.
Change your definition of "human". Odin knows they do it themselves in the lead-up to the most horrific acts they commit against each other.
Again, many kudos to the editing!
Humans and dinosaurs do coexist today…we just call them birds now.
Every time I go to Chick fil A, I have a dinosaur sandwich, afterall God made them for us to eat. mmmm tasty dino meat
I like Marshall and Hall in that they take the faith very seriously and are uncompromising with the secular culture. With that said, I cannot get on board with YEC. Unless Satan has somehow been intentionally tricking us and playing greatly with our minds, there just seems no good basis at all for it. The evidence seems to be too overwhelming. I actually think the Bible can be enhanced in some ways when you do not take everything written in it literally. There can be more power and meaning in a metaphorical sense than a literal sense. This YEC I also think has undoubtedly contributed to many smarter people leaving the Church perhaps. Though I do find YEC to be a thing more in certain Protestant circles.
If you leave because other people hold to a younger earth then you weren’t there for Jesus. This is a bad argument and shouldn’t be used. Just make it clear than neither OEC or YEC is a part of the gospel and these problems go away.
@@jordandthornburg I think that argument probably applies today. I think in the past (and again, more in Protestant circles) you have kids who grew up in families being taught that YEC is the only truth. That almost the entire Bible is to be taken literally. They could not believe in that and so they gave up. Maybe they learned later that there were other ways of understanding the faith, but probably too late for many of them at that point. Though even today you still have many Protestants in the south that hold to this YEC view and teach it as absolute truth. Many kids are still growing up in that. And in today's high information era and increased access to higher education, I think you are going to continue to see a decline in faith.
There's also the potential to consider that dragons were influenced by fossils. The cyclops was likely the result of mammoth bones, which had a single large opening due to the snout. Dragon could be similar. They found the bones and then tried to explain them within the context of their myths.
I myself am a YEC and I can definitely say there are some pretty weak and dumb arguments thrown around. This one should have been left as a theory for Marshal to ponder on his own time.
Every YEC argument is weak and dumb.
@@spiderdxn2263 Perhaps from a scientific or incomplete viewpoint, but God creating something from nothing in contrast to the laws of nature shows us that science is not always the answer.
Moreover, my reasoning for a young earth stems from a philosophical argument for why there was not a macro-evolutionary process of man or beast. No evolution=no need for billions of years to fit a narrative.
I have to back Stacy Trasancos on this. As a former Agnostic (though infant baptized Catholic, much later confirmed back into The Church), I still do, and always will, believe in science, evolution, and the beauty and symmetry it hints at, hints at what only our lord Father in heaven can create and set into motion. Science in no way, whatsoever, contradicts The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Not one iota. Those that cannot see this, have their eyes closed. Willfully.
While I agree with what you said, I do find it strange that you don't condemn Polygenism or correct your colleague Jimmy Akin's Polygenism which is opposed to church teaching.
Because he cant stand Marshall
the dutch national catechism, who recieved vatican approval, puts forth a legitimate way to understand polygenism. Biological polygenism is not a problem, what's against divine revelation is proposing that the rational soul didn't radiate into the homo sapiens species from a first couple.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Not sure if what you said is true. But if Adam and Eve are not literal two individuals, I'm done being catholic. You have 0 level of credibility or falsifiability when you take this position.
Here are a few problems with Polygenism.
The teaching Magesterium is pretty clear, that Polygenism is False. Humani Generis Paragraph 36, 37
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 635, quotes Ancient Homily for Holy Saturday, which is definitely in reference to a couple. There are even icons of Christ descent into hell raising up Adam and Eve.
Romans 5 definitely is not in reference to Polygenism
New adam and eve typology destroyed and thus is undermining the Immaculate conception.
No church fathers would hold this view if they were alive today.
Some of the greatest modern Biblical scholars e.g. brant pitre deny polygenism as being compatible with church teaching
Jesus quotes Matthew 19:5-6 which is in Genesis 2. Clearly referencing a historical Adam and Eve that is a single pair.
Here are more problems with Polygenism: timstaples.com/2019/were-adam-and-eve-real-or-symbols/
Some falling into the extreme, will place the foundation of our faith in the natural use of our intellect. This kind of Pelagianism should be condemned. Apologetics is not a replacement for the faith.
@tafazziReadChannelDescription try not to lie about things like the dutch catechism. Which eas universally panned.
@@whitevortex8323 I never said they're not two individual. If you define them as "the first male homo sapiens with a rational soul" and "the first female homo sapiens with a rational soul", you get two people that certaintly existed. What some people used to see as incompatible with the christian faith is the proposition that homo sapiens with a rational soul could concieve by mating with homo sapiens without it. However the church never said that can't be the case!
Polygenism is not a useful word because it doesn't apprechiate the distinction between homo sapiens with a rational soul, and homo sapiens without.
To make it simple: the sin of a couple can easily be the cause of the fall of man, even if Cain's wife was not his sister.
Clear and compelling. As a Catholic scientist, I cringe when uninformed, but well-meaning folks use anti-scientific arguments to support the faith. The truth doesn’t need such assistance. Excellent quality video Trent!
These vain and effete self-proclaimed "trad" influencers are so tiresome and, frankly, often dim on this topic. Which is really too bad, because I agree with them on most other topics.
I've lost patience with trad influences altogether. I love the Latin Mass, too.
This Trent is where you are out for lunch. I called you on Catholic Answers and you said that Cain and Seth's wives werent human....
They were homo sapiens but most likely not descendants of Adam and Eve.
Even with this model, it wouldn't even take 2000 years for all humans to be descendants of Adam
I love Taylor Marshall and Kennedy Hall, but I see more evidence for an interpretation that doesn’t rest on a ‘young Earth’
@Stephane Colibri
You may love their boldness, but you can't detect their sophistry.
Well put
@@therealong
Thanks! ;)
@@juantoomany7202
Pretty disingenious to use that Augustine quote at the end when Augustine is defending a more literal reading of Genesis.....and not say that in the video?? Weird
Yeah Augustine gets cited all the time in reference to the belief in "not necessarily 6 day creation". He believed in instantaneous creation of everything. Quite the opposite of a gradual billion year creation
But if someone like Trent who believes that Catholics are free to hold either view is correct, then it doesn’t matter which reading Augustine held to. He was applying the principle of the quote, which was not to make ridiculous arguments thinking you know what you’re talking about, lest you turn people away from Christ.
@@calebadcock363 The ridiculous arguments are coming from those who are raising old earth theology to the level of a dogma. If you think siding with the early church fathers is ridiculous, I think you have your priority of authority wrong.
I'm happy that you addressed this interview and topic! I'd like to see a debate with Kolbe Centre or Kennedy Hall
Thank you for the suggestion! -Vanessa
@@TheCounselofTrent age of earth isn't something I've looked into or is a particularly high priority for me, though the young earth people don't only rely on only these arguments addressed in the video. They also question the methods and reliability of the tests to determine the age of rocks and fossils. As a non-scientist I just have to trust the tests and results they claim.
However on the theory of evolution (humans have an ancestor that was a fish or something) I can't believe it. It doesn't make sense to me that there were loads of monkey-like animals without a soul, then at some point one evolved and God gave it a soul? And what about the female, that monkey-like animal evolved at the same time? Is there any evidence (fossils?) for the leap from fish to monkey to human... The theory of God creating humans feels much more consistent to me than the theory of evolution
It’s so interesting to see the next form of the “Trad Crew”. Wonder what they will support next? 🤷♂️ 🍿 🛋️
Do Jimmy Akins alien stigmata next
…alien what?
Jimmy was just theorizing and surmising to a hypothetical question asked......are you suggesting there's a problem that needs to be deconstructed with what he had to say?
Because he wasn't scoffing at or criticizing anyone else and he wasn't suggesting the Church had any specific teaching on it. It was really clear it was his own personal ideas of possibilities.
That's not in the same category as what Trent addressed here
Unlike Hall and Marshall, Jimmy didn’t impose that as a teaching of the Church that Catholics must believe.
@@Deuterocomical That said it does not appear as though Hall and Marshall are imposing it in such a way. At least based off of the clips shown in the video here.
@@TheJmlew11 Maybe I’m misremembering, but I believe Hall is on record making such statements
I think it's definitely possible God created the Earth already aged like how Adam and Eve were created as fully grown adult humans. However, it's definitely not necessary for this to be the case and we certainly don't know this to be true. It's just that God obviously isn't limited by the physical reality He created.
Thank you for this comment! -Vanessa
The camera click/slide click sound effect was kind of annoying with how often it was used.
The claim that the paluxy river tracks are an effect of erosion is manifestly false. Explain how erosion made dermal ridges on the footprints? Interesting how the human tracks are so confidently listed as "an effect of erosion", whereas at the same time the dinosaur tracks aren't questioned.
Why should other people have to explain this to you? It’s on you to subject your beliefs to proper scrutiny
@@johndeighan2495 The problem is that Trent claims science can simply explain this but in reality it can't, he should stop spreading evolutionist propaganda.
@@johndeighan2495Because it looks like human tracks. You are ones claiming EROSION didn't affect dinosaur tracks only human tracks because that would destroy evolution "millions of years ".
@@MichaelAChristian1 Well, I guess it's on you to look into why even most people on *your* side of the debate (if it even deserves that name) think the river tracks are a bad argument.
@@johndeighan2495 Again. I know why Because they are being weak to evolutionists lies. If you believe footprints that LOOK human must be dinosaurs that's called in SPITE OF EVIDENCE. Don patton answered all their objections and actually did experiments of footprints, they are RUNNING prints. Further the evolutionists were caught smashing them to pieces because they know exactly what it looks like. They wouldn't have bothered making up a lie unless they knew what footprints look like.
Real quick since you Mentioned Dr. Taylor Marshall. I'm Lutheran and I surround myself with many Catholic channels since our Theology is so close and I often use Catholic and Lutheran sources in local debates with Reformed Evangelicals.
Anyhow, this is to say that I was watching the SSPX and Taylor Marshall show and saw them or in particular Taylor Marshall claim that the founders of Lutheranism were evil men and it was a bit gross to me. I'm not offended by being told I'm wrong or have mistaken beliefs but these particular Catholics often take their antagonism of non-catholics to the point of prejudice. Hope I'm not misrepresenting them. Just voicing my experience
The theology of Lutheranism is not "so close" to Catholicism. "faith alone", "scripture alone", denial of the eucharist, denial of the papacy, and others held by your sect are satanic man made doctrines not taught by God's word or the Church. Same with your sect's insistence of female "bishops", false clergymen, promotion of contraception, etc. The Catholic faith and membership in God's Church (the holy Catholic Church) is needed for salvation.
I find Martin Luther rather off-putting myself.. I have heard the polished and good faith takes.. yet if you actually dive into him, the scatology against the Church, the flatulation and feces references is quite dirty and unworthy of arguement. how on one hand he encouraged German peasants to revolt, only to turn around and support the Princes with "divine right". He made the German language amongst all the dialects, which is good, yet comes with a National identity resisting authority(Rome, The Church) and his rather anti-Jewish teachings obviously influenced later generations(WWII and Adolf), even stated at Nuremburg. Lutheran Church did support them, even acknowledged it, Dachau was first used for Catholic priests who resisted the regime, the more the Church spoke out, the more reprisals happened.. there is a reason Einstein wrote and thanked the Church, this just isn't talked about or well known as so many just dismiss the Church with recoil after the scandals by infiltrators and subverters.
I am Trad Catholic myself and think he coulda/most likely had some evil goin on.. seemed to have many battles with Satan and demons in his own words.. how he dealt with it was quite unique, so to speak... alot of his table talks are in the original Vulgar German, so unless you go looking, you just get the censored, poliahed, good faith interpretation of those that benefit from it
Also, revealing that your avatar pic is of the devil horns
You know there are large branches of Lutheranism that literally proclaim as part of their confession of faith that the pope is literally the anti-Christ. How do you feel about that?
I wish that Whistler had painted a portrait not of his own mother but of Grendel’s…