Metaphysical Principle in Relation to Creation & Evolution (Part 1) ~ Fr Ripperger
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ธ.ค. 2024
- kolbecenter.org/
For more sermons & lectures please visit
sensustradition... & remember to do the PenanceWare Fr asks for
Fr Ripperger's order of exorcists dolorans.org/
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
Support Catholic Businesses here - sensusfidelium...
Sensus Fidelium Press - sensusfidelium...
Sensus Fidelium Apps - sensusfidelium...
Support Sensus Fidelium - sensusfidelium...
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
Let me repeat it again.. Fr Ripperger (and Fr. W...e) are your national treasures, pray for them like crazy!
Who is fr w e?
@@stefanknezovic88 ...olf...
@@hicnar why, does he get flagged when you type out the full name. I don't get it 😂😂
The catholic church is the authority to speak of these things and God. It's amazing
He is so brilliant. I love to see our priests in their cassocks. Greeting from South Africa 🇿🇦
He is Catholic. We all need his Example, to be better at being Catholic.
I could listen to Ripperger 24/7 same with Ryan. God bless.
Brandon Young Ryan is part of this conference series!? Yus. This one has an all star line up.
Who is Ryan? I love this priest here and I would like to hear others like him. I listened to almost all of his videos and I am now looking for more material.
THANKS LORD FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Easy for you to say. Was it not Pope Gregory of the Catholic church who gave King Alfonzo the the go ahead to start slavery in the Americas. The Catholic church can kiss my Black Ass.
I cannot thank God enough for being part of the Church He instituted. If it was not for the Teaching of the Church, I would have been drowned by the waves of the world. The Church is like a light in the darkness that helps me see which path to take in order to reach Christ.
@@motdrappehs2268 The Church has always opposed chattel slavery (owning a person like an animal) because it is unjust, but there can be legitimate forms of servitude (punishment for a crime is the prime example [still allowed under the US Constitution], but also working off a debt, capturing and subduing aggressors in war). You can go back to the OT to find teaching against kidnapping someone and making them a slave. Mistreatment of servants who lawfully incurred some type of servitude was also prohibited. The New Testament made it clear that there was an equality of persons before the Lord. "In Christ there is neither slave nor free," etc. It was the habit of the early Church to encourage the liberation of slaves, as well as their good treatment, and to work toward the reform of the legal system which happened over time as countries became more and more Christianized. In many cases the Church proactively changed canon law in order to address human rights issues, so this would effectively bypass defective civil laws.
Here are a few papal statements against slavery:
Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, 1435 www.papalencyclicals.net/eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm
Paul III: Sublimus Dei, 1537 www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa03sd.htm
Gregory XVI: In Supremo, 1839 www.newadvent.org/library/docs_gr16is.htm
What you are referring to is Pope Nicholas V in Dum Diversas, 1452. It was a letter to King Alfonso of Portugal who had apparently written to the Pope asking permission and blessings for a crusade against the Saracens (Muslims) in North Africa. The Pope granted his request noting that the Saracens were enemies of Christ "struggling to extinguish Christian religion." Their modus operandi was to invade countries and force people to accept Islam. They also conducted raids and themselves engaged in a horrific slave trade. So, it is just to treat such people as criminals and to invade and occupy and subdue them if it is prudent to do so. The Pope authorizes conquering "Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ" in this context. And the key phrase that is lifted in order to claim that Nicholas V somehow was responsible for abuses by Spain and Portugal that followed after this period is, "and to lead their persons into perpetual servitude." But this seems to mean obeisance since it is part of the reason for the action in the first place: "to bring them back to the faith of Christ." This would just mean conquering and re-establishing a Christian realm that the Saracens had previously conquered. You'd have to look at the wider history of both Christian kingdoms in North Africa as well as what the Saracens did there and their constant aggression against Christian civilization both before and after this date. Keep in mind that the Muslims had intended to invade Christian Europe all along. They were finally stopped at the battle of Lepanto in 1571.
Here is a page that translates the original Latin of this document into English: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html
@@motdrappehs2268 "one thing is perceived by me as bad and therefore everything is bad". I will pray for your enlightenment, poor soul.
@@motdrappehs2268 Were it not for (black) slavery in the Americas, you would likely be in sub-Saharan Africa drinking dirty water from shallow ponds in the dry season.
The Holy Spirit recently guided to toward Fr Ripperger and I will be eternally grateful.
I listened to this several times and learned something each time.
You’re on point at 34:51 when you say the idea that causes are fixed is how we do science. I once attended a seminar (as a scientist) where one profesor was adamant that we not anthropomorphize scientific processes (happens a lot) bc evolution is random. He argued that there is no such thing as cause and effect and more so we cannot speak of things as they ought to be but simply as they are. To which another colleague responded that our whole gig as basic scientists was to establish causes and as medical scientists was to fix these processes back to the way they ought to be. How are we to do science if not under these premises? The first profesor who was the director of the department conceded that to actually do science we have to “pretend” there are causes and basically teleology.
Wow just wonderful , Fr Ripperger is just pure wisdom walking.
The treasures of the Church : so beautiful and joyful
Pray That I Will Have True Sorrow For My Bad Habits Shame For My Vain Thoughts Flee Evildoers Avoid Ungodly Associates That Blessings Will Come Upon My Property Belongings Life Health
great talk, read his article on the metaphysics of evolution very well done! This is like that article but explained in audio, which is helpful.
Do you have a link to the article?
kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Metaphysical-Impossibility-Ripperger.pdf
Thank you!
Obviously, the Treatise of Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution is a biased one. It leaned heavily on the teachings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas so that the title should have been The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution According to the Metaphysical Principles of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. The concatenation of the metaphysical principles mentioned finds their validity from the principle of non-contradiction. This principle however is debunked by one Nobel Prize winner in Theoretical Physics whose name now escapes me and whose book I browsed several years ago at Barnes and Noble in New Jersey. There seems to have some truth to it if Aristotle's teaching on potentiality and actuality are closely examined. Note that there is pure actuality, but there is no pure potentiality because pure potentiality cannot become actual. Simply because it lacks the potentiality to become actual. Thus, potentiality must be actually potentiality to become actual; It is and it is not at the same time.
Thank you so much for the link.
A much needed antidote to the content over at the so-called Thomistic Institute.
Exactly, even evolutionists and athiest have debunked their theistic evolutionary explainations. God is not ambiguous.
This priest wears cassock. He is so cool
Cool? You should see him dancing with angels, during exorcism...
Now why is it Thomistic Metaphysics is explained better by an exorcist as opposed to my Dominican professors...I wonder
Have a look at aquinas 101 that’s rly good for beginners
@@CHAZER-sp5cm they promote evolution..
That's interesting Joseph, the dominican channel aquinas 101 promotes the theory of evolution. Sadly.
@@Nonnobisdomine77 ignore that but buddy then
Nooooooo? Are you serious?
I just listened to their first and second episode supplemental listening and they said something that sounded heretical but I would have to go back and listen again. @@Nonnobisdomine77
Why does no one bring up the fact that, if creationism is true, which I 100% believe it is, this also explains how everyone before Abraham could have, in theory, known God if only their ancestors had properly passed on their Tradition which would have been passed down starting with Adam & Eve (and Noah & his sons later on).
I feel like this is an important fact to acknowledge due to how frequently people think it is “unfair” that if you’re born is Asia or something before Jesus how would you have ever known of the True (at that time Hebrew) Faith? Well if their ancestors hadn’t abandoned God, they could have. But just like immoral parents will often raise immoral children, parents who damn themselves through ignoring God will raise children ignorant of God.
Maybe I’m not making my point very clear. But it’s a concept that I wish someone smarter than I would articulate with more depth and clarity.
The cathecisms talks about that. There is a vast catholic theology talking about that. Google that subject in catholic papers, "enciclicas" and offical pronouncenments. I am.sorry i cant really help i am.not a speaker native
The Church will talk about natural reason. There are some people that will not know the faith. When that happens, God is fair and good enough to judge a human heart based in everything He knows. He knows us more than we do.
Beech,...………….I know what you are talking about. When Noah's children came out of the Ark, they all knew about God from their father. They spread all over the world, so Ham settled in Africa, Shem in the Middle East (in Asia) from which we get the Semites, and Japheth went to Europe. All three of these knew about God. Later on they turned against what their father Noah had taught them and we know that because the Semites worshipped other gods such as Baal. The Egyptians (sons of Ham) worshipped different gods such as Isis and Osiris. If one reads what Blessed Catherine Emmerich wrote, one will get an idea of what went on. It seems that she is one of the few gifted with the visions of past history. She travelled back in time and saw certain events in history before and after the coming of Christ. The Church never condemned her writings and I read that she accurately described places , without ever physically travelling to these places (she visited them in her visions).
I disagree, in my opinion God keeps speaking to each and every one of us and He uses very different "channels" to reach us. In my own case, the day I started reading Maria Valtorta, I HEARD, mentally speaking, heard Jesus speaking and my path to conversion and repentance started there. Most people I know don't experience anything in particular when reading Maria Valtorta, but I'm sure they see and hear other messages and private divine revelations to which I wouldn't be attracted myself
What's the name of the song at the beggining. It is beatiful.
I believe Fr. Ripperger is another "St. Thomas of Aquinas" for our time...evolutionists have no standing when debating Fr. Ripperger. Same thing happened in 13th century with Aquinas. The errors of Judaism and Muslims scoffing at the Catholics saying Catholics could not reconcile faith and reason, were thoroughly refuted by his learned principles as applied to these subjects.
Not sure what is causing those sound glitches...You Tube or his microphone.
How to rebuke those who say evolution is not about something "coming from nothing", which would require infinite power, but just continual change of what already exists? I get that accidental change cannot lead to substancial change, but what has the idea of "coming from nothing" anything to do with evolution?
Because the Big Bang,before which there was nothing,is where evolution starts
Metaphysical, I love this word because the Council of Trent formulated that our original sin is transmitted metaphysically thru procreation.
This has boggled me for a long time..
How can the original sin be transmitted metaphysically...it has no physical realities and yet the effect on us is so huge it resulted to our fallen nature, inclined to do Satan's bidding to sensual pleasures...even St.Paul complained about this struggles in the flesh.
So, what is the meaning of original sin being transmitted metaphysically?
Key word BREATHE..
Adam was created body&soul, but not have the BREATHE of the Holy Spirit for him to have a Divine Life, a living soul.
So what Satan do to Eve first, and to Adam next....satan imitates what the Lord had done...satan BREATHE too..
but the BREATHE of satan doesn not breathe life...it breathe death..
So, lets uncover the theory & teaching of some of Church Fathers like St.Ambrose, St.Augustine, etc. that the original sin is related to sexual activity or sexual intercourse...
Why?
CCC400 teaches that original sin is MARKED BY LUST...
Try reading too the sin of Onna...the Onnanism...spreading of semens on the ground is a cursed.
Look at the punishement in Genesis3:16...the ground us cursed too besides the serpent...
The Wisdom of the the Catholic Church never expounded on this area, I guess strictly this pondering is "for adults only".
If the Church does not go on expounding there's a Higher Wisdom behind this...it will be a scandal to know what the actual sin or the act of disobedience Adam & Eve committed.
But my personal reflections led me to believe St.Ambrose & St.Augustine theory/teachings that original sin is related to sexual intercourse...
Picture the Word METAPHYSICALLY transmitted and the word BREATHE...the breathe of satan is metaphysical in nature...
How can it enters Human physical dimension or realities?
let's ponder more...
Godbless
I think it is much simpler than that. Adam and Eve were born in full communion with the father. Through that they were taught directly from the very source of life, the purpose of life and how to live it. All humans after that has been born outside that communion with the father. Thus has never been taught the how and why.
Think of any child growing up without any parent. If they have to figure out everything by themselves the result will not be good. But growing up in full communion with loving and caring parents who show the child how and why it is loved. The result is a human with a solid foundation in love and a bright future.
We are children growing up without our father. Until we through the son of man returns back to the father.
I didn't know that!
Jong Ricafort, If sex itself caused the Original Sin, why has God commended men to Multiply? For multiplication to happen intercourse is needed. Of course God wants us all to remain Chaste, even in marriage, and God is pleased more in those who are celibate out of love for Him, but I do not find plausible that the Original sin could be related to sex.
Metaphysical means beyond what we see (nature) which means it has to do with the spiritual realm.Adam is the head of the rest of his children and they all form one body, just like Christ is the head of the Church, and we the believers in that Church, are the body Christ. We were freed from Original Sin when we became part of the Body of Christ (Church) and have left being part of the body of Adam. That is why Christ is always compared to Adam. By one man Adam sin entered the world, and by one God Man the world was redeemed. So by Baptism we leave the body of Adam and become part of the Body of Christ (mystically speaking).
Adam and Eve distrusted God and even went so far as to wish to be His equals, even though they knew better. It's not at all about sexuality, certainly not about ordered sexuality. Jesus explained in great detail the original sin to Maria Valtorta
Unless I missed it which is unlikely because I wrote this whole thing down, the only word that is not defined by Fr. Ripperger is the word "substance." Could the owner of the channel be so kind as to forward my request for this to Fr. Ripperger and let us know his response? Thank you.
I don’t know if this helps, but Aristotle defines primary substance as that which is neither present nor said of a thing. Present means ‘not capable of existence apart from’ (accidents) and said of basically means capable of being predicated; you can look at Aristotles prior analytics( ch 1-3?) for further definition.
35.37 how do you explain the observed events where lifeforms gain new Gene's and traits?
Which events?
They don't gain new genes they're already there; "junk DNA" is defined by these scientists to be the "stuff" left over by evolution that is now not being used; it turns out, its being used, constantly, you can look at Hugh Owen and Fr. Chad Ripperger's video.
Oh, too easy. Imagine existing genes having this capacity
I'm catholic. And everything he's saying makes sense. But does anyone have an explanation of why we have fossils at some depths of the earth and then they disappear at later layers, and then new types appear, and so forth. One explanation is that carbon dating is flawed, I don't think it's so flawed as to.get it completely wrong. Another one is that all animals existed always but weren't always fossilized, but then why don't the same fossils happen in older layers of earth and then younger as well if it's just random. Having a hard time wrapping my head around that one
I think it is in the visions of St Catherine Emmerich, that the plants and animals right after creation were so perfect in splendor that the creatures in her time paled in comparison. Which means , according to her visions there are difference in the creatures of today and back then, before the fall. Which could explain away a lot of these prehistoric animals and extinct species.
The flood of Noah was a real event. Creatures on the sea bottom were buried in mud first. Then larger sea creatures. The largest animals who were moving upward away from rapidly rising waters were deposited in the upper layers as they drowned.
Carbon dating is only accurate for a couple millennia or so, though the original inventors of the process thought it might have more utility beyond that. So basically it can date human artifacts fairly well to a certain point, but not supposedly prehistoric fossils.
Answers in Genesis offers very interesting scientific reasoning in this regard
Song at :07?
Where is part 2
Is there anyone smarter than Fr Ripperger?
Thomas Aquinas
I used to have an extremely smart law professor. He was able to quote pertaining jurisprudence from memory, indicating this or that page at where to find the exact point he was making. Nobody understood how he did it. He seemed to have infused knowledge in law matters. To the best of my knowledge he is still alive, God bless him
I love Fr. Ripperger. But I am seriously angry at the people who are responsible for the recordings.
Not speaking for Thinkcat2 but I am about 40 minutes into the conference and when Fr. Ripperger begins to explain what I know for me is necessary to follow the conference, there is a problem with the audio and one doesn't hear what he says. It has happened at key points in the conference.
wow guys be a bit more charitable. I am sure those who recorded this did their best with what they have. The recordings may have had some mistakes, but let's be grateful that we have them recorded at all.
Something that doesn’t have sight can’t give sight to something else
You can’t give something you don’t already have
I much respect for Fr Ripperger but I think he fails to see that every animal has the potential for an incredibly high number of substantial changes since it is of the nature of animals to possess genes which mutate...
the more complex changes that result from evolutionary process ARE in the simpler form, they exist potentially in DNA, all it takes is the right mutation in the right animal in the right environment to actualize it...
52:00
46.32 historians have to create a lot of complex things to explain history the idea that god created the world yesterday with apparent age is much simpler
Ok so he says things that dont have sight can lead to things that dont have sight. If we apply what he said earlier, that lesser cant lead to higher than he is saying that sight is better than not having sight.
At first glance this might seem fine because, as humans, we find sight go be beneficial. However for many animals who live in caves or the darkest part of the oceans sight isnt useful because there is little to no light. There are species who live, reproduce, and die just as well as any human does in the darkness of caves and not having sight isnt a problem. they are not lesser for not having it because they are suited to their environment.
A creature in a cave which cannot see is lesser than that exact same creature with also the ability to function outside of the cave. Because the power of sight is an attribute which the other lacks, and in that sense it is superior. Whether it is specifically better fit for living in a specific environment is a different measure of 'betterness'.
For example an angel and an ant have vastly different attributes, yet the angel is of a higher order of being, having lots of abilities the ant does not have, and also lacking something the ant does have (physical matter).
@@josephcole8875 no the idea if superiority in nature is absurd every animals in nature feels a niche. What you are doing is like saying a hammer is superior to a porkchop. They do two different things
@@jacobpilavin7056 a beautiful painting is superior to a bare canvas innit
@@jacobpilavin7056no, it's not: everything is ordered to a purpose which is fully known to God only. Man is above all other living beings on Earth, but superiority can only be understood within the broader concept of responsibility. God gave us this responsibility, within the broader context of hierarchical degrees. In this sense, we are superior to apes, rats, fish, etc.
Since the title is Metaphysical Principle in Relation to Creation and Evolution, it is but proper that he should be teaching metaphysics or natural philosophy, or even epistemology and logic. And then RELATE them to creation and evolution. If he began in the study of evolution, he could have taken the path of Aristotle in discovering the first principles of thought and reality. Or whether substances and essences are indeed realities or just predicates of being like genus, specific difference, property and relations.
Evolution makes perfect sense
Provided you have enough intelligence to watch and believe computer simulation showing "life" coming out of "rocks and sand" (Dickie Dawkie). Next time you eat ice cream think it's impossible to make unless you have an ecosystem (bees, trees, grass, cows etc.)
Both the creature and creation cannot be greater than the Creator. That would be absurd.
Couldn't the effect be contained virtually in the cause? For example, hydrogen and oxygen do not formally include water but virtually or eminently include water. The evolution of species from other species could be metaphysically the same. Love Fr Ripperger, but I don't buy this argument that evolution is necessarily contradictory to Aristotelean-Thomistic metaphysics.
33.50 what empirical evidence to back this up
What empirical evidence was ever offered for naturalistic theories about the origin of life?
Crickets chirping...
35.44 how is not having site greater what does this even mean?
32.14 define essence does a organism capable of doing photosynthesis have a different essence than one that cannot? Because we have seen organism develop that. How about multicellular life vs one celled life do they have a different essence? Because we have seen unicellular life go to multicellular life.
You have video evidence of a one celled organism becoming a multi cell organism with no outside stimulus?
Human being begins as unicellular life and very rapidly it becomes multicellular.
Do human beings really start out as unicellular life? I was under the impression that a sperm cell and an egg were two different cells
34.00 what no evoultion has been observed Gene's reach fixation and sometimes bring new features
To the four-year old 1+1=2 is just as "new"
Cave drawings depicting dinosaurs habe been found: this is one big thermonuclear bomb for many evolutionist theories.
Just as tree trunks petrified within many different "geologic" layers are annihilating many geologic theories
"They have eyes and don't see, ears and don't hear..."
Oh, and concerning genes: who says they can't do different thinks according to different circumstances?
33.32 what do you mean by lower order species don't have that type of hierarchy
Okay
Everyone's loosing their level-headedness over this.
Here's how Dawinism is taught:
Giraffes didn't acquire long necks because they stretched them more.
Only those among them in the gene pool that aquired them survived to reproduce.
So when the students ask the question at 22:?? - the professor answers, "Factors such as solar radiation mutate the genes over a long period of time. So it's just a game of probability. This is how we're able to breed domestic animals in order to develope a desired trait."
Of course, on the surface, this appears convincing enough and may be true to an extent. But it proves insufficient as we search for undeniable archeological proof for species transformation.
So something else might be going on here. Assuming it's true that it took an eternity (beyond even our vast estimations of life 'development' on earth) - without some exterior influence that we can't begin to imagine; there simply isn't enough evidence to back Darwin up.
So at 22:24, I have to hear this guy out.
well, there are definitely transitional fossils, but even if we didn’t have a single fossil, there would still be a plethora of evidence for evolution
@@kvnboudreaux Great, perhaps you would care to share some of the 'evidence'.
@@johncharleson8733 the fossil record tells a story that the further back in time you go the more simple organisms become...
of course there are the fossil records that tell a story of gradual change in species
there is the DNA evidence
there are vestigial organs
evolution can and has been observed in the lab with short life cycle insects
@@kvnboudreaux 1) The time record you speak of uses a false dating method--this has been more than adequately covered by many researchers; you may want to check out these arguments.
2) See #1 above
3) The vestigial organs you speak of, at least in human terms, have been proven to be not "vestigial" at all, but functioning at a then unknown purpose--the appendix for instance.
4) Insect changes have shown to be mere adaptions--no insect has changed into another distinct type of insect.
@@johncharleson8733 there are numerous vestigial parts, organs and structures all throughout the animal kingdom
I don't know what time record you are talking about, but I am talking about the fossils in the geological record. layers of rock, the deeper you go the further back in time, the deeper you go the more simple the organisms get..
you also didn't address the genetic evidence.
in regards to the flies, that is micro evolution, just small adaptations...macro-evolution is just micro evolution over long periods of time...
Can you prove that this essence exists empirically.
31.14
You can't prove that essences exist empirically anymore than you can prove that 2+2=4 empirically. We learn about metaphysical truths deductively from the first principles of reason. We can't prove them through induction from sense experience in the way that physical, chemical, biological truths are proven. This is also the reason that metaphysical truths are more certain than physical ones.
@@celiabyrne8259 Yes you can prove 2 plus two equals 4 empircally add two items in a bag then add two more. You will have four items in the bag
@@thegoblin957 You missed Celia's point. She said 2, not 2 items. In your case, you are adding items, not numbers. Celia is adding numbers.
@@chrisbernal5164 i frankly do not care your metaphysical bullshit. evoultion is observed to happen in a lab all biology points too it. If your metaphysics goes agansit reality is wrong
35.01
Please explain how rice has gained over 100 new Gene's in the last million years
How Antarctic cod developed a antifreeze Gene's that previously had no function
There is no proof that a million years has elapsed--BUT, aside from that:
Hasn't recent genetic investigations led to the current idea that physical change can bring about changes in the DNA?
I believe the above is the present wisdom--however, there is still no known mechanism which changes a rice into a cod.
1) The rice is still rice.
2) The cod is still a cod. (this one example is especially stupid; as you have stated, the gene was there but just 'inactive'.---the cod simply used what it had in an adaptive reflex to it's environment--big deal.)
You are extrapolating from the changes within a creature, the ability of that creature to change into another form.
Please explain the exact origin of life and I'll take it from there to explain everything else
I wish you could produce one grain of rice "100'000'000 years old" for us to have scientifically examined...
Around 17:40 he says that we cant assume things higher in the hierarchy come from lower things.
I can see this feeding right into a common misunderstanding evolution which is that modern species arose from other modern species. I.E. People thinking evolution says we evolved from monkeys. No, current monkeys, humans, and apes have a common ancestor, according to evolution.
I can tell you from my many biology classes that students are not taught to view animals in a hierarchy. It is natural for humans to see themselves as the culmination of evolutionary processes or other animals as lesser and greater but in evolution the focus is on whether or not that animal is adapted to their environment. At most, it might be said a species is perfectly adapted or suited for its environment but that is always said with the understanding things could change.
Sure maybe you can find one arrogant ass who believes humans are the pinnacle of evolution. but you can find arrogant asses who think they are God's gift to the world.
All of your comments just make you look desperate to keep your evolution hypothesis alive.
@@jamie7880 I dont need to keep it alive. it exists as an idea all on it's own. it will continue to exist and exert influence over biological sciences for a long time.
so it would do everyone good to not misrepresent it and understand it.
I happen to believe in God so I can tell you this nonsense he is spouting is not necessary to keep believing and accept evolution. unless you need to be a Fundamentalist Protestant.
@@bnpixie1990 a "fundamentalist protestant"? Oh please! We've heard it all before! The last cry of the modernists, calling everyone who is faithful to the faith "fundamentalists" and "literalists". We aren't fundamentalists if we adhere to the fundamental truths of the Faith. If you aren't Catholic, then I guess you won't understand.
@@jamie7880 nothing is advanced by lies or by misunderstanding. he is tearing down a strawman.
@@bnpixie1990 are you referring to a specific part of the video?
46.37 okay the four humors has much less principles than modern medicine.
44.46 no theirs a third option your hypothesis needs to be remodeled
34.18 we have observed organism developed new Gene's and feature through dna mutations buddy
tell me one new gene that has been developed, buddy
45.18 the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evoultion buddy
So what--who pays their bills--buddy?
Overwhelming majority of humans accept killing unborn human beings... What's your point?
The idea of god creating us last Thursday with a apparent past that never happened has fewer principles than geology archeology and history. Do you see the problem with your line of argumentation
I am at the 22 min mark and if he is going to keep bashing evolution for what it isnt then I am just gonna stop watching. This is like a Catholic being taken to task for what a Baptist, Calvinist or Presbyterian has to say about God and the Bible.
And what exactly would you say evolution is, that he is misrepresenting it? Or are you just irritated that your favorite fiction is being attacked?
Ok we cant be that arrogant towards Hume and glibly ignore the affects of natural selection over time. I'm sorry that is just as bad as playing whatever mental gymnastics Hume did to conclude that the ball moved on it's own.
Obviously you glibly ignored the presentation, and it took you less than an hour. Father Chad very clearly stated that natural selection can affect changes within species (microevolution), but cannot create new species (macroevolution).
34.51 we do know the every fact we have observed speciation to happen that we have seen new traits arise in organism that previously lack them debunks your arguments. If observed reality goes against observed reality its time to find a new philosophy
speciation refers to new variations of the same natural species, not new natural species themselves. Give me an example of "new traits that have arisen in an organism" please.
@ let's see new flagella engines have been observed to evolve in under two days in one knock out test.
We have observed the mutations that turned a sample of cod junk DNA int a working anti freeze gene
@@jacobpilavin7056 send the original papers
@ am on mobile right now but search cod anti freeze. The evoultion of new traits is no longer in dispute in biology its been observed to happen on well understood theoretically
@@jacobpilavin7056 I know the evolution of anti freeze protein. Is an accidental change. The protein loses its function and by chance is electrically attracted to ice crystals. This is not a gain of function, but a loss. It solves nothing of the issues discussed in the video.
17.38
No their isn't a hierarchy nothing more evolved than another. And evoultion has been observed speciation is been observed evdeince for evoultion includes genetic test ect
Aquinas would cringe at this priest's muddled use of metaphysical principles to prove or debunk evolution. Someone told me this guy was good, WRONG. He is confused and confusing. It is an illogical use of reason and mis-applied use of metaphysical principles. Waste of time!!! How do I know he is wrong? Because I teach theology and metaphysics.
I mean why use metaphysics when presenting with cold hard data. Hes obfuscating
"I teach therefore I'm smart" is not convincing, in fact, your reasoning hurts your argument.
@@Ancipital_ Normally I don't feed trolls, but the argument isn't as you state. "I teach" is simply that I have some knowledge of the topic. Being smart isn't a part of my argument at all. This priest while well intentioned I'm sure simply confuses things.
@@davegrey246 “I teach” means nothing of the sort as what you say it means this days.
The bookful blockhead, wonderfully read
with loads of learned lumber in his head.
You must be quite an authority on Aquinas yourself. Have you ever considered publishing your knowledge?
33.31 their is no higher order the idea of any biological thing being higher is absured
40.11 in that case your whole argument against evoultion is false has it's been observed in real time in nature and the lab aswell has being recorded for all time in the fossil record and our genomes
The only thing observed are changes with accidents, i.e. accidental changes, not substantial changes. So, no.
There's very little gain of function mutations. Most are nonsense or lead to disease.
48.07 your abusing occams razor take for example modern medicine vs the four humors theory in modern medicine the cause for health is vastly more complex than in the four humours model. So should we reject modern medicine
32.37 we have literary seen new species evolve in real time. You have constructed a fantasy world with no connection to reality
Micro-evolution not macro evolution. We have not seen higher things evolve from lower things. So again, no.
@@Ancipital_ Do you think mulitcellurity is a macrochange how about new working proteins?
@@Ancipital_ Their is no such thing has higher or lower evolved organism evolution is not a ladder a bacteria a snail and a human are equally has evolved.
@@thegoblin957 So if you believe that than a bacteria is equal to a human. makes some sense, but anticatholic
@@laddamclaren3917 They are both equally evolved evolution does not go to higher or lower levels. Whatever makes the most kids wins
Metaphysical principle schmetabysical alabaloney.... There's only the physical reality of creation and how it happened. Getting closer to understanding that is done by observing the universe, collecting data and generating progressively more complex models thereof. Not by studying philosophy or relying on our reasoning capability to grasp creation.
Are you catholic?
Very much so. Why?
You asked why I asked you if you are Catholic.
I respond: I asked you because I read what you wrote and what you wrote is not the teaching of the Holy Mother Church.
You might think so because philosophy has infested the church from an early age. But thankfully this is about to change as modern science has pulled down the academic pants of philosophers, such as Aristotle, over and over again. Creation itself has proved over and over again that we can't rely on our reasoning ability to figure out the mechanics of creation. Yet philosophy holds on to this branch for dear life.
Peter Carlson, you are seriously confused. Philosophy is about formulating questions. Once you don't know how to do that, your answers might be correct but they will also be meaningless. This is what is happening with "pulling down the pants of Aristotle". The attempt to use pure reasoning ability is not the invention of Aristotle or Plato. It is the invention of the Enlightenment. What you call philosophy must then be the post-Enlightenment tradition of it, faults of which you are then projecting onto what came before. It might be that I don't know what I am talking about. But this thing is the exact reason for my ongoing conversion from Protestantism to the Catholic church, so I am quite sensitive to it. For reference, see Owen Barfield's book Saving the Appearances.
59:00