Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.  (Read 1841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5922
  • Reputation: +3296/-510
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2022, 10:03:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    "The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]

    Offline Simeon

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 34
    • Reputation: +25/-5
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #16 on: May 24, 2022, 10:11:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh my poor, aching mind!!!!!! What made me think I would benefit from tuning into this chaos????????????

    I lasted about 1.5 hours, thanks only to my nifty deck of playing cards, and my nimble, anxiety-diverting, solitaire-playing hands. 

    And now, to completely catharticize my assaulted nervous system, I must type. 

    I have a cat. I can pet him, feed him, groom him, play with him. But reason with him, I cannot. Teach him, I cannot. Persuade him, I cannot. And this because he and I belong to completely different orders of created reality. I belong to the rational order, and he belongs to the sensitive order.

    Just so with atheist oafs. By their grievous sins they have become like senseless beasts, and are degraded to the degree of participating only the sensitive order. Their affected rationality is pseudo-rationality, like when fakers make a chimp look like he's calculating sums. These blaspheming, mocking, inane baboons are sub-human. Hugh and Mark are literally casting precious pearls to possessed swine. Their "opponents" cannot even begin to make the distinctions indispensably necessary to carry on a conversation at this level. They cannot distinguish between orders of reality (natural/supernatural; objective/subjective; potency/act). They cannot understand, let alone apply the principles of reason/knowledge. They are entirely ignorant of the two sources of human knowledge. They cannot even begin to comprehend the real hierarchies of being, of knowledge, of the sciences, and of authority. They are incapable of thinking taxonomically. One of them was smugly throwing out accusations of logical fallacies, as if he were an adept at thinking, and not a trained orangutan.  

    These filthy atheists are exactly like the vermin described by St. Jude: Ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ; defiling the flesh, despising dominion, blaspheming majesty. They blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted. They have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core. These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever.

    If one person listening to this chaotic noise is touched by Hugh, then his own suffering in bearing with these animals will have borne fruit. May God grant it!

    As for me, do they still make Brioschi?








    Offline Simeon

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 34
    • Reputation: +25/-5
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #17 on: May 24, 2022, 10:27:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    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.

    Offline StLouisIX

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +646/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #18 on: May 24, 2022, 10:40:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 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.

    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. 

    Thanks for this! 

    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9452
    • Reputation: +5105/-409
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #19 on: May 25, 2022, 12:05:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for the commentary, Simeon.
    I wasn't available to watch it.

    Quote
    As for me, do they still make Brioschi?


    Apparently they do:

    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.


    Offline hansel

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 28
    • Reputation: +88/-1
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #20 on: May 25, 2022, 09:46:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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.

    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....


    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.

     



    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5922
    • Reputation: +3296/-510
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #21 on: May 25, 2022, 10:09:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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.
    Yes, right, creation fell, but that doesn't mean it took on completely new qualities as I erroneously used to think.

    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.
    "The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]

    Offline Simeon

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 34
    • Reputation: +25/-5
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #22 on: May 25, 2022, 10:23:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for the commentary, Simeon.
    I wasn't available to watch it.


    Apparently they do:


    Ha Ha!!!

    Oh the fond memories I have of eating these fizzy pellets after big family dinners. They are the Italian alternative to after dinner mints!!!


    Offline Simeon

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 34
    • Reputation: +25/-5
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #23 on: May 25, 2022, 10:46:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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....


    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.

     
    Great points, Hansel!

    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.  




    Offline Simeon

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 34
    • Reputation: +25/-5
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #24 on: May 25, 2022, 11:01:12 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, right, creation fell, but that doesn't mean it took on completely new qualities as I erroneously used to think.

    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?

    All very interesting points you bring up. We know that the world is winding down, that it has an end, and that it is fit only for to be burned. Time is winding down, and certainly, if the original sin of our First Parents threw the entire material universe into disorder, then what of the tidal wave of actual sin that has engulfed the groaning world ever since? Death, sickness, weakness, blindness, pestilence, etc., are all the wages of sin. I would speculate that the degeneration of man and beast and even plant is the direct consequence of sin. Note the inverse correlation between degree of sin over time, and material degeneration of the kinds.

    I wonder if creation, due to the egregious burden placed upon it by the sins of men, begins to reflect God and truth less and less, and, thereby, losing more and more its very reason for being, shows in itself the corruption of the matter which will ultimately lead to the one admitted substantial change - death and annihilation.

    Going back to Hansel's points, Scripture clearly spells out that Adam and Eve were placed in a very special place. They did not live in the elements, and were not part of the "biosphere." The animals were "brought to Adam," suggesting that they might not have dwelt in the Paradise of Pleasure with him. Thus the existence of carnivores, vermin, parasites, etc., is not logically precluded by man's state of original innocence. Our punishment was to be thrown out of the Garden, and to "become like senseless beasts," toiling, sweating, groveling, and killing to avoid being killed. 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30621
    • Reputation: +18033/-4522
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #25 on: May 25, 2022, 11:25:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5922
    • Reputation: +3296/-510
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #26 on: May 25, 2022, 12:10:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    "The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5922
    • Reputation: +3296/-510
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #27 on: May 25, 2022, 12:14:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    So literally this then:


    I had a debate class in college, and I vaguely remember it did not operate on that basis, but was more formal.
    "The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]

    Offline Yeti

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1824
    • Reputation: +948/-271
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #28 on: May 25, 2022, 06:28:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is from the Roman Martyrology and is chanted in the divine office every Christmas. These are the words of the sacred liturgy:


    Quote
    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.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30621
    • Reputation: +18033/-4522
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Debate - God specially created mankind less than 10,000 years ago.
    « Reply #29 on: May 25, 2022, 07:40:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So literally this then:


    I had a debate class in college, and I vaguely remember it did not operate on that basis, but was more formal.

    Yep ... exactly this.  Apart from the fact that there's no serious intellectual discussion able to be had, due to the speed-reading style, these two are orders of magnitude worse than anyone I debated over the years.  That young lady was tripping over every other word and it was slowing her down.  She would have been destroyed by the real pro speed readers.  We all know why they won.

    I see, however, that they now allow computers (we didn't even have laptops really when I was debating) ... to replace the file cabinets on wheels that people used to drag around.  So evidently all you have to do now is have a lot of research (I bet you can buy it online ... even in our day you could buy the research for the topic of each season, so I can only imagine what it's like now with the internet) and be able to read quickly (which these two couldn't even really pull off).  And their "championship" round was against two Black men who were ... rapping with music (so I never saw that garbage in my day).

    Whatever that crap is, it's not a debate.  I always refused to debate that way, and so we always lost due to "judgment by quantity" vs. quality ... except that one debate where the judges had seen enough of that crap also.

    With regard to your debate class, no, a class would not teach this style ... it was only to be found in the competitive debate circuit.