prominent atheist Youtuber, Tom Jump,Well, God bless them for trying. I remember the debate between Ken Hamm and Bill Nye years ago when I was an atheist, and that did nothing to convince me except to laugh at him.
I think the problem I always have with these is that it is always Protestants who aren't that familiar with philosophy. I recall this one video that made me chuckle, where a moderator of a "Christian" debate server got super angry and started angrily repeating something to the effect of "YOU HAVE NOT DISPROVED THE CHRISTIAN GOD". Whenever I see an atheist use the term I chuckle inside a little. Why a "Christian" wouldn't just use the term "God" instead is beyond me but that is Protestantism and "apologetics".Protestantism, in all of its flavors, is pure cringe and is solely responsible for keeping me away from Christ for 27 years of my life (give or take 2 or so as a Methodist when I was a kid, which was also cringe). It's funny, because I remember having respect for what little I knew of Catholicism but it was the Evangelical and Baptist-variety "Christianity" that kept me from taking it seriously.
Protestantism, in all of its flavors, is pure cringe and is solely responsible for keeping me away from Christ for 27 years of my life (give or take 2 or so as a Methodist when I was a kid, which was also cringe). It's funny, because I remember having respect for what little I knew of Catholicism but it was the Evangelical and Baptist-variety "Christianity" that kept me from taking it seriously.I had the exact same problems. I was open to God but no one would show me something like Augustine, Aquinas etc. All people talked about was "grace" (I am using quotes because Protestants toss this around in a nebulous fashion), justification by faith and "being saved". If someone would have showed me the Dimonds 20-25 years ago... I am here now and God chose this for a reason so I am thankful, even if I'm late to the vineyard.
My wife and I would watch "Jesus Camp" and other stuff for a laugh.
Well, God bless them for trying. I remember the debate between Ken Hamm and Bill Nye years ago when I was an atheist, and that did nothing to convince me except to laugh at him.Laugh at Ken Hamm, or laugh at Bill Nye?
Laugh at Ken Hamm, or laugh at Bill Nye?
Laugh at Ken Hamm, or laugh at Bill Nye?Both, but mostly Hamm
I am puzzled as to why some of you are rambling about protestants when the debate is between Catholics and atheists.
Nadir said: I am puzzled as to why some of you are rambling about protestants when the debate is between Catholics and atheists.I think an additional reason why is in most of these public evolution/age of earth debates with atheists etc., the creationist/young earth advocate has been a Protestant, not a Catholic. Therefore, there are always going to be comparisons to these previous events.
Ken Ham for example wastes immense energy, time, and space in his Creation Museum and his debates trying to "prove" that all predators ate plants before the Fall, while St. Thomas Aquinas soundly rejects that very notion in the Summa. A truly traditional Catholic debater (and a solid formation in true natural science as well as the higher sciences) could outperform many of these Protestants.
StLouisIX said: Where did St. Thomas write on this subject in the Summa? I'm curious and want to read into it myself.Sure, it's an interesting topic worth looking into. It's in question 96 article 1 of the first part of the Summa: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm) He covers this question in his Reply to Objection 2.
What St. Thomas speaks of there is one error that I consistently kept making when I was studying Creation on my own, namely, that sin changed the nature of lesser creatures. But it makes sense that the lion is going to eat the sheep, even before the Fall, because that is the natural order of things.It really is an interesting question.
Sure, it's an interesting topic worth looking into. It's in question 96 article 1 of the first part of the Summa: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm) He covers this question in his Reply to Objection 2.
Basically, he says that before the Fall predators didn't attack man, but that predators did eat other animals. In addition to the link; I've reproduced the objection and the reply below (I bolded the relevant text.)
Objection 2. Further, it is unfitting that elements hostile to one another should be brought under the mastership of one. But many animals are hostile to one another, as the sheep and the wolf. Therefore all animals were not brought under the mastership of man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm).
Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state [of innocence], have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30 say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon.
As for me, do they still make Brioschi?
Simeon said: If she is correct, then why the differences in the teeth of carnivores and herbivores? It's hard to conceive that the Fall of man would have caused these kinds of changes in the physical characteristics of animals. Ultimately, I think the guiding principle is that the consequence of the Fall is to throw all of material creation into disorder. The body rebels against the soul, though the soul's rightful dominion is not obliterated. And the creature rebels against man, though his rightful dominion over the earth is not obliterated.
Yes, right, creation fell, but that doesn't mean it took on completely new qualities as I erroneously used to think.
Is it not the tradition of the Church that all of material creation fell with Adam's sin? Upon a simple reading of the texts, one might come away with the idea that all creatures ate herbs before the Fall. If I'm not mistaken, well-known creationist Paula Haigh held to that opinion.
If she is correct, then why the differences in the teeth of carnivores and herbivores? It's hard to conceive that the Fall of man would have caused these kinds of changes in the physical characteristics of animals. Ultimately, I think the guiding principle is that the consequence of the Fall is to throw all of material creation into disorder. The body rebels against the soul, though the soul's rightful dominion is not obliterated. And the creature rebels against man, though his rightful dominion over the earth is not obliterated.
Thanks for the commentary, Simeon.Ha Ha!!!
I wasn't available to watch it.
Apparently they do:
(https://i.imgur.com/9o2CvN7.jpg)
Exactly, I agree. If some animals switched from eating only plants before the Fall (obligate herbivory) to eating meat afterwards, they would have had to change form in drastic ways. There would need to be significant changes in morphology of the teeth/jaws, digestive tract, sensory systems, metabolism etc. They literally would need to change their nature and identity. Ultimately, this opens a big can of worms, as these changes could be of a macroevolutionary magnitude....Great points, Hansel!
Ken Ham and others, while well intentioned, often cherry-pick omnivores (animals eating both plants and meat) which have "carnivore-looking" teeth such as land-based bears, coyotes, etc. to make a drawn-out argument that ALL carnivores could have survived on plants alone before the Fall (in other words, he thinks drastic changes weren't needed). However, many of these animals, especially those in the dog family, wouldn't do so well if you removed all the meat from their diet. And the fact that bears also eat plants in addition to meat is actually reflected in their teeth (the blunt carnassials, vs sharper ones in a more active carnivore). Therefore, their teeth are actually different from those of an obligate carnivore.
And these examples neglect predators that by their nature feed exclusively on meat. Cats of all kinds and sizes for example are obligate carnivores. When vegans try to force their house cats to eat a vegan diet too to "save the environment" (lol), the cat inevitably becomes ill. The vast majority of raptor birds such as hawks are equipped with the talons and beaks best used for seizing/processing animal prey, and are active predators. The anatomy and behavior of snakes such as constrictors are set up for restraining, engulfing, and digesting animal prey. And while reconstructions of extinct animals are never as certain as living ones, and should be looked at with caution, it cannot be denied that many dinosaurs (T rex, Spinosaurus, Velociraptors etc.) have teeth and claws that were best used to prey on other animals.
This becomes even more apparent in the ocean. Penguins can only feed on fish, krill, squid etc. Dolphins, whales, porpoises, and seals feed exclusively on fish, mollusks, and crustaceans; their teeth (or baleen), GI tract, and sensory systems could only work for this kind of diet. The razor sharp teeth of most sharks and many other fish are specifically used for slashing, ripping, and cutting the flesh of animals. A deep sea anglerfish's bioluminescent lure is specifically used to entice small fish, which are then consumed by teeth only a predator could have. Adult sea anemones and jelly fish are all based on the concept of trapping animals with stinging cells, and then feeding on them.
Parasites are another good example. Something like a tapeworm or roundworm relies on the animal it infests, and really can only do that. In fact, tapeworms are so dependent on their hosts, they don't even have a digestive tract; they just absorb nutrients they are bathed in within the host's intestines. To envision "back-engineering" a tapeworm into something that could live outside the animal host long-term and eat plants before the Fall would mean making into something different from a tapeworm; a completely different animal.
Another interesting way to look at this would be to observe the forms that animals use to defend against predators. The shell of a turtle, the quills of a porcupine, armor of an armadillo etc. are overtly defensive structures; a primary function of these is to protect against predators. If no predation/death existed prior to the Fall, the nature of these animals really doesn't make much sense.
Even on these natural levels, St. Thomas's statement that the animals' diet and "natural antipathy" didn't change at the Fall (even though their behavior towards humans did change then, creating the disorder) seems to make more and more sense.
Yes, right, creation fell, but that doesn't mean it took on completely new qualities as I erroneously used to think.DL, I do not understand your abbreviations, EO and ROCOR. What are they?
Given that so-called "microevolution", which is really just adaptation and variation within kinds, it's obvious that animals have degenerated and changed over time from their more perfect first parents to less perfect offspring, just as we have, due to Adam's sin. Given the lifespans of animals, its no wonder we see more numerous and varied changes in them. But that doesn't mean a change in one kind to another, which requires a transubstantiation of that creature by God.
I'm trapped under a newborn right now, so I can't grab the book, but I believe EO "St." Symeon the New Theologian spoke of the perfections of Adam and other creatures before the Fall which align with this sort of degeneration.
The book "Genesis, Creation and Early Man" by ROCOR hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose further supports the same idea of creation being drastically different before the Fall, then degenerating, and changing again after the Deluge to give the appearance of eons of time passing.
DL, I do not understand your abbreviations, EO and ROCOR. What are they?Sorry, EO is Eastern "Orthodox" and ROCOR is Russian "Orthodox" Church outside Russia
I only watched a small part of it, but the atheists were tough to listen to because they were just throwing out words (assuming that they were real and proven things), so they were trying to just flood their various spiels with tons of terms, etc. ... but weren't debating the core issues. That's actually an obnoxious technique that injected itself into High School and College debate, where the tendency of the judges was to award the debate to the person who threw out the MOST stuff. So you had the phenomenon of speed-talkers winning the debates, and there was never any intellectual engagement between the two sides. These teams would walk in with literal file cabinets on wheels and would pull out these "evidence" cards, which were just quotes, and the judge awarded each point to the team that produced (i.e. read) the most "evidence" cards for each point, and then the team that won the most points was awarded the debate, and the core intellectual disagreements were lost in the noise. It got to the point of absurdity. So the speed-talkers that could rip through the most cards along with the teams that had the biggest file cabinets invariably won, even if they engaged in no rational discussion whatsoever. In the final rebuttal, teams would go through an outline of the points and say stuff like, "I.A.1 -- we: 4 cards, they 2 cards -- we win that point", and just go through the list. So I switched over to Lincoln-Douglas debate format, hoping it would be different, and it was a little better, but the same nonsense. Only difference with Lincoln-Douglas is that you debated by yourself and there were rounds where the topic was unknown ahead of time. Yet people still found a way to bring in their file cabinets and go in the same direction there.
So in last night's debate, after they rattled off 30 things in two minutes, you would lose the point if you couldn't refute each an every one of them in the time you had. And it's not possible to do any of it justice. It was obvious to me that the atheists came from this absurd and sophistic debate background (High School and college debate), as I was in those circles for years before I got sick of it and quit. What it had turned into was neither enjoyable nor worth my time. At one point, I was on a team with a single partner, and we both agreed to walk in cold with ZERO evidence cards for any given debate. We did nothing but argue from either memory or using our brains. LOL ... we actually won a tournament unexpectedly, much to our surprise, since it appeared that the venue we were at had also become sick of the old "evidence card" speed-reading crap.
In the 5199th year of the creation of the world, from the time when in the beginning God created heaven and earth; from the flood, the 2957th year; from the birth of Abraham, the 2015th year; from Moses and the going-out of the people of Israel from Egypt, the 1510th year; from the anointing of David as king, the 1032nd year; in the 65th week according to the prophecy of Daniel; in the 194th Olympiad; from the founding of the city of Rome, the 752nd year; in the 42nd year of the rule of Octavian Augustus, when the whole world was at peace, in the sixth age of the world: Jesus Christ, the eternal God and Son of the eternal Father, desiring to sanctify the world by His most merciful coming, having been conceived by the Holy Ghost, and nine months having passed since His conception (A higher tone of voice is now used, and all kneel) was born in Bethlehem of Juda of the Virgin Mary, having become man.
So literally this then:
https://youtu.be/fmO-ziHU_D8
I had a debate class in college, and I vaguely remember it did not operate on that basis, but was more formal.
Simeon said: Great points, Hansel!Thank you Simeon for that book recommendation and your comments. I will definitely look up Fr. O'Toole's 1926 book and look forward to reading it!
1. Yes, such changes could be considered macroevolutionary, and therefore impossible. Also such changes would seem to contradict Holy Writ, wherein it is revealed that God created all the living things according to their kinds. Philosophy helps us to understand these kinds - the principle of essence limiting the principle of existence, and this according to the substantial form. I think it is correct to say that the accidents we see in animals, such as their teeth, anatomy, digestive tracts, etc., are also limited by the form. Change the accidents and you change the form - which is impossible. (Perhaps we can talk about chimeras/GMO's further ahead.)
Additionally, every single created species is in some way reflective of the attributes of the Divine Creator. Psalm 44: The queen stood on Thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety. There are many solid interpretations of this verse, including that it signifies Our Lady, or the Church. I often read it as signifying Creation, which has for its two most prominent hallmarks, hierarchical order and innumerable variety.
Cockroaches, serpents, flesh-eaters - these all reflect either Divine attributes, or realities of Creation and Redemption. At the very least, all of these beings reflect God as Pure Existence. But there are many other applicable analogies. If only men would contemplate creation prayerfully, it would read like another Holy Writ, with, perhaps, even the same four senses.
2. Ken Ham is a creep. Inside his creation museum, is a room dedicated to trashing the Roman Catholic Church. I wrote him to complain, and I never received a reply.
3. I love all your examples. There is a fantastic book, which you can read at archive.org. It was published circa 1926. Fr. Barry O'Toole, The Case Against Evolution. There may be some cosmological or other minor errors in it. I can't remember now. But it is chock full of examples like what you've supplied; and also excellent arguments of a philosophical nature, which prove many of the certain truths of natural religion.
This is from the Roman Martyrology and is chanted in the divine office every Christmas. These are the words of the sacred liturgy:I cannot think of any grouping of words in existence that gives me more tingling joy than these! Thanks for posting them!
Thank you Simeon for that book recommendation and your comments. I will definitely look up Fr. O'Toole's 1926 book and look forward to reading it!Roger that!!!
It really is an interesting question.Interestingly:
Genesis 1 states: [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:
Dixitque Deus : Ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam afferentem semen super terram, et universa ligna quae habent in semetipsis sementem generis sui, ut sint vobis in escam :
[30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
et cunctis animantibus terrae, omnique volucri caeli, et universis quae moventur in terra, et in quibus est anima vivens, ut habeant ad vescendum. Et factum est ita.
And St. Paul, Romans 8: [19] For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God.
Nam exspectatio creaturae revelationem filiorum Dei exspectat.
[20] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope:
Vanitati enim creatura subjecta est non volens, sed propter eum, qui subjecit eam in spe :
[21] Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.
quia et ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis in libertatem gloriae filiorum Dei.
[22] For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now.
Scimus enim quod omnis creatura ingemiscit, et parturit usque adhuc.
Is it not the tradition of the Church that all of material creation fell with Adam's sin? Upon a simple reading of the texts, one might come away with the idea that all creatures ate herbs before the Fall. If I'm not mistaken, well-known creationist Paula Haigh held to that opinion.
If she is correct, then why the differences in the teeth of carnivores and herbivores? It's hard to conceive that the Fall of man would have caused these kinds of changes in the physical characteristics of animals. Ultimately, I think the guiding principle is that the consequence of the Fall is to throw all of material creation into disorder. The body rebels against the soul, though the soul's rightful dominion is not obliterated. And the creature rebels against man, though his rightful dominion over the earth is not obliterated.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." |