Creation with Paul Taylor

All right, we are live, Apologex Live, glad to have you here with us and we have,

I hope, a lot of fun in the show tonight. We're going to have a special show with a good friend of mine that we're going to bring in and his name is

Paul Taylor. And folks, if you don't know Paul, well, okay,

I might as well get this out of the way first before he rips on me. You may need translation.

He might sound a little funny, won't you? I'm sorry, what did you say?

He is from England where they speak some language called English. Yeah, this is, of course, how it should be spoken.

When you get to heaven, this is the way that you will all be speaking. We'll speak

Hebrew there. Actually, that was a question that was asked to me this week, was what language do angels speak?

And I was like, well, Hebrew, everyone knows that, but I don't know

Hebrew, so I'm going to really struggle. Well, that's the thing, I think, is

I think that we'll all, regardless of what language we spoke on earth, I have no scripture at all to support it.

I think we'll all understand one another. We'll all speak a language we all know. Can't support that in the

Bible. It's very likely. I mean, you can sort of half support it, can't you?

Because obviously one major problem that arose with the human race was the

Tower of Babel, and therefore we can assume that the consequences of the

Tower of Babel will not exist in the world to come.

So, yeah, it doesn't absolutely prove it, but it's sort of partway towards it.

It's consistent with that, I would think, for us all to be speaking the same language. Yeah, so I didn't even introduce the show.

So I am Andrew Radford, your host from Striving for Eternity. This is Apologetics Live. Today's topics, no, we will not be stuck just to these topics.

We're going to talk about Mount Saint Helens. We'll see why that in a moment. We're going to talk about creation versus evolution.

So if you have questions or challenges with that, you are going to have an expert here to be able to get those answered.

And then we may even, if you haven't figured out why this may be a case, we may even talk about Brexit and Britain exiting from the

European Union there. So we'll see. But folks, if you want to join, if you have questions, have some things you want to ask either

Paul or I today, it doesn't have to be about creation or evolution, but those would be the best ones for today for Paul to answer.

But if you have any questions, you can go to ApologeticsLive .com.

There is a link to both watch. You can watch it right there or you can join us and ask your question.

And there are some, I guess, restrictions on browsers. We're using

StreamYard. And I know with Chrome browser works great. You just have to say accept the video and audio and it's good to go.

So I'm using Firefox here and that's working perfectly OK. So, OK, good.

All righty, well, that is the introduction. So let's start, Paul, with talking about Mount St.

Helens. Something happened there almost 40 years ago. It was on May the 18th, 1980.

There was a large eruption and it was a lateral blast, which means that instead of the eruption going upwards, it came out of the side of the volcano along the ground.

So as far as the local area is concerned, it was a devastating eruption.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, compared to a lot of other eruptions that have been around the world, it wasn't actually that big.

But of course, it happened in an area which is, even in 1980, was a technologically advanced area with easy access to transport and to the media of the time.

So it was an eruption that was broadcast very quickly and easily around the world.

The blast was powerful enough to rip trees up from just above the roots and with a hot blast that had the force of probably about a thousand

Hiroshima -type bombs and extremely hot.

So that blast knocked down trees up to about 14 miles away from the volcano, sort of fanning out northwards, northwest to northeast, 230 square miles of forest destroyed.

There was a landslide that filled up the valley to the north of the volcano to a depth of 600 feet.

There were a number of mudflows that flowed down the various river valleys, including a huge mudflow down the

North Toutle River, which was destroying properties up to 50 miles away from the eruption.

And the mudflows and mud eventually made its way into the Columbia River, causing problems for shipping.

So it was a devastating eruption in the area, causing an enormous amount of damage to the economy.

Some neighborhoods destroyed, railways and railway bridges and road bridges destroyed.

The road bridges, most of the road bridges on certainly the major roads were eventually rebuilt, but that cost money.

Railways were not really replaced. The large amounts of managed forest had to be replanted.

So this was a devastating event economically. But I think, as you probably want to go on and ask, it is very interesting indeed to those of us who believe

God's word to be true, because so many of the things that happened are not consistent with a uniformitarian evolutionary view of how the world came about, but are consistent with a biblical approach to looking at the world.

And that's why we have a visitor center really there, a creation center,

I should say, up at Mount St. Helens, because there's a lot that Mount St. Helens teaches us about creation and the arguments with evolution.

Before we get there, let's let's talk about your role. And I do have the website there for folks is mshcreationcenter .org.

And so that's where you can go to get more information about what's going on up there.

And so before we get into some creation evolution discussion, let's talk about the center itself, its purpose, what it does for folks.

OK, well, it is a visitor center. It's a creationist visitor center in the area.

So people can come in and they can find out, first of all, about the volcanic eruption, how that changed the landscape in many ways that, as I said, are consistent with a biblical account of the world and its formation.

We see a number of effects that are very similar to what must have happened at the time of the worldwide flood.

So we also have information about the worldwide flood and how that affected the global geology of the world.

And we have information generally about the

Bible and how it teaches us the truth from the very first verse. So we have this visitor center where you can come and look at exhibits.

We have a sort of theater area where I can give presentations about the volcano and about other creation topics.

And we can show films as well. We have a number of films that we have permission to show here that we can show.

And during the fall, we will be having a regular film show. Just keep an eye on our website so we can work out what day of the week that will be.

And we take people on trips to various interesting locations in the

Pacific Northwest, especially around the volcano, so that they can actually see for themselves what happened in the area and what the biblical interpretation of those is.

We are situated on the interstate I -5, just off exit 49 in Washington State, in the tiny city of Castle Rock.

So we're in the middle of downtown Castle Rock. As I said, it's a very tiny city, a population of 2 ,000.

It's a great place for tourists to be able to come and break their journey partway between Portland and Seattle.

And it's really the entrance to the way that you would tend to approach the volcano.

From exit 49, there is the road up to the Johnston Ridge Observatory, the closest viewpoint to the volcano.

So we take people on excursions there. We take a caravan of cars from our center and stop at different places where I can explain to people what happened in those places and explain them from a biblical point of view.

We do sometimes take people around the south side of the volcano so they can see the effects of an earlier eruption that must have happened about 2 ,000 years ago.

And we take people around the east side of the volcano, which is very remote with roads in poor condition.

But what's interesting around the east, being a lot wilder, is that things have not been cleared up really since the 1980 eruption there.

And it's very interesting to look at things there. And we take people to see other things of interest from a biblical creation standpoint in the area, such as the

Columbia Gorge and the Dry Falls, for example. Yeah.

Now, when we think about Mount St. Helens, and this ministry,

I should actually say, you didn't start the ministry. It was well established before you got there and started running it.

Your position there, I don't think you mentioned it. I'm the director of the ministry, so it is a very small ministry.

It's principally me. I do have a couple of volunteers who help with different things on occasions, but it is principally me.

So I'm the only one who is being compensated for the work done here.

I'm here full time. So, yeah, I'm the director of the ministry. The ministry was founded in 1998 by a gentleman called

Lloyd Anderson, who was a retired pastor in 1998. And in 2014, the board of the ministry invited me to take over the ministry, which

I was very pleased to do. So this is very much a base for my ministry generally.

I use this space to communicate with people and from here to travel to other parts of the country and other countries as well to explain to organizations and churches why they can trust the

Bible from the very first verse. Well, we should mention, you used to work, actually,

I think you used to be the director of Answers in Genesis UK, right? I was for a little while their senior speaker in the

United Kingdom. I worked as a speaker, an itinerant speaker for Answers in Genesis in the

UK from 2005 to 2011. And for the last two years of that,

I was their senior speaker in the UK. And then you came to the United States working with Eric Coven.

That's correct. In Creation Today in Pensacola. So you had a lot of background in creation ministry.

Well, I've been really involved in creation ministry since my late teens.

So that is over 300 years. Sorry, it's over 40 years.

You were around for Abraham Lincoln, right? I taught him everything he knew.

So now there's one thing that I got the privilege of learning about you that others may not know.

You and I were both speaking in California, staying in someone's home, and they had a piano and I got a rare treat because you are a concert pianist, right?

No, I'm not a concert pianist. I mean, you have to keep up with practice very, very regularly to maintain that level, and I'm nowhere near that level now.

I did pretty nearly approach that level. I was trained as a concert pianist. Yes. So I was close to that level during high school.

During my high school years, I was trained that way, but I enjoy playing the piano. That's something that I do for my own relaxation.

I think you're very good at it. I got my own little, you know, you're just sitting there and all of a sudden

I got my own little concert. So I remind folks, if they want to come in, ask questions, or if you have a challenge for either of us, maybe on creation or evolution, you can go to ApologeticsLive .com.

There is a link to join there to participate, and you can join us and ask any questions or even challenge us.

We don't bite too hard through the Internet. So let's talk about, while we wait for folks to come in and ask questions, let's talk about why

Mount St. Helen's Creation Center is so interesting as far as for creationists.

Now, for the record, you're a six day, you believe that God created everything in six days, about 6 ,000 years ago, correct?

Yes, that is correct. Yeah. Just so folks, because there are some folks in chat asking, is he a young earther?

Yes. But I actually, I agree with you. You have a podcast with the Mount St. Helen's Creation Center.

I agree with you. I don't think the earth is young. Well, this is something I was,

I was interviewed on another podcast a couple of years ago, and the first question that the interviewer asked was, why do you call yourself a young earth creationist?

And I said, I don't. And so I could hear him beginning to panic on the other end of the phone.

He thought, has he got the right person? And so I followed it up just to tease him a bit more and said, you know,

I believe that the earth is very, very old. And, you know, I can hear the sort of gasping, you know, and he was about to come in.

I said, the earth is just over 6 ,000 years old and that's very old. I don't know of anything that is that old, because that is when the

Bible says that God made the universe. I said, now, the reason why some people call themselves young earth creationists is because they're saying that the earth is young compared to the millions and billions of years that evolutionary theory and deep time ideas require.

But I don't see why I should define myself in terms of what evolutionists and deep time people would accept.

I'm going to define myself in terms of what the Bible says. The Bible makes very clear that the earth is just over 6 ,000 years old.

Now, you know, some people try and make a great significance on the number 6 ,000.

There isn't a significance really on that number other than the fact that that is, you know, the earth is just over that age.

There is a margin of error in our calculations, but we get the figures from Scripture.

So where I would describe myself, therefore, as a biblical creationist rather than a young earth creationist.

Yeah, and that's I think for folks who may not understand that, how do we get this from the

Bible? The way we do this is we look at the scriptures and we have Adam was a certain age before he had children.

He was so old before he died. You can look at when he had his children and when he had

Seth and you can go through each one of these things and you end up being able to draw a chronology.

Now, when I was a young believer, I was still trying to see if because what

I believed was before becoming a Christian was very much not Christian. It was

Jewish. And so being the engineer type, I wanted to see if I could prove the

Bible wrong because if I could, then I could stop believing this. And I approached it and I did this as a

Christian, but still being a tad bit skeptical. And my thinking was the easiest way for someone to mess up.

And I've done this when I study Mormonism or any of the other religions. The easiest way when they write some documents that they say are written by God is with numbers, when people forget numbers and birthdates are an easy one to forget.

If you're going all this time and you're going to say so and so, we got so and so, we got so and so, we got so and so, you can actually measure that out.

And that's what I actually did as I went through the Bible. I recorded the dates because the one thing

I could say is if I could prove that somebody lived beyond the flood, that wasn't one of the people mentioned being on the flood or in the ark that would go beyond that margin of error, then

I could show mathematically the Bible was wrong. I got very close with Methuselah, who would have died probably the same year as the flood by my calculations.

Now, why is there a margin of error? The reason we say there's a margin of error is because you have

Adam was, I think, 130 before he gives birth to Seth. Paul's going to correct me on this if I get it wrong.

I've got the Bible in front of me, but I mean, what you're saying is, for example, in Genesis 11, verse 10, it says when

Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arphaxad. And by the way,

I know a lot of young Christian couples like to give their children biblical names.

So, you know, if you haven't thought of a name for your son, this could be an option. You know, we could do with more

Arphaxads in the church. Maybe there's some in the UK that are working out here. It just sounds better when you say it.

Yeah, but when Arphaxad was born, this is a pretty obvious point, was his father

Shem 100? Was it his 100th birthday or was he just one day short of his 101st birthday?

So you see that for every entry that we're looking at in those chronogenealogies, where there are numbers, there is a possibility of a year's margin of error.

Now, we can move on a little bit further and show some other margins of error where people will make a slightly different calculation.

For example, I have calculated the age of the earth to be 6022.

Now, as I said, you've got a margin of error there. You can add on some numbers due to each of those entries. Here's another place you could add on some numbers.

You see, I've taken it that the looking at Galatians 3, that the sojourn of Abraham is dated from probably shortly after he leaves

Haran. And that is the 430 years.

Some other people would date the 430 years as starting when Ishmael is making fun of Isaac.

But still other people would say, quite understandably, that the 430 years cannot start until the

Israelites are in Egypt. Now, if you take my view, then the

Israelites were only in captivity in Egypt for 215 years.

But again, it is perfectly justifiable for some people to say, no, that won't do. That has to be 430 years actually there.

By coincidence, 215 is half of 430. But here's the point. There's a margin of error then of 215 years.

So you could add another 215 to my age of the earth. So you're getting to about, you can stretch the age of the earth probably to about 6 ,500 years.

That's about it if you're using the Masoretic text. Now, of course, if you're going to take the numbers, the figures from the

Septuagint instead, where the numbers are slightly longer,

I'm pretty clear in my mind, I've read around a bit and I've read what a couple of different people have said,

I'm pretty clear in my mind that the Septuagint numbers are incorrect. But if you took them as correct, that might add about another 800 years.

So you'd be getting up to an age of 7 ,500 years. And that's about as far as you can stretch it, even giving every possible margin of error.

So the point that I'm making with all this is that whatever system you look at with the Bible, taking the biblical figures, you are never going to be able to stretch the age of the earth even to 10 ,000 years, let alone millions of years.

It just simply does not make sense. Yes. And we did have someone come in to ask questions.

Actually, three people that came in on one camera and they disappeared. Oh, we don't know what the question was, so we can't ask that.

But folks, come back in. We wanted to let Paul finish this thinking out before we went to the question.

So anyone who does want to join, ask questions. You can go to ApologeticsLive .com.

The link to participate is there. I should mention something, Paul, that you and I have not talked about.

This by way of a commercial here is we're going to Israel. Striving for Eternity is taking a team to Israel.

We're not taking the team to Mount St. Helens yet, but maybe we will. Maybe we should do a trip like that.

But if folks are interested in going to Israel in 2021, IsraelTrip .com.

Now, this is March of 2021. You got over 500 days, lots of time to save. So you can do that, and therefore, you would be able to get started now.

But if you do this in the month of September, you can save $100, all right?

Because we're giving $100 off to every person. So go to 2021IsraelTrip .com.

It will be the people doing the speaking will be myself, Anthony Silvestro, Frank Mullis, the three speakers from Striving for Eternity.

And we will have joining us Justin Peters. So he is going to be coming as well, and we're going to be doing the teaching.

The cost includes your hotel stays, your flight from JFK, your breakfast and dinners, the guides, the bus, the bus driver, things like that.

And the only thing you really have to pay is lunch once you get there. Now, if you're not flying out of JFK, I forget the discount, but you meet us in,

I think, Tel Aviv and we'll meet you there. And that way we can we can save you some money, possibly.

So go to 2021IsraelTrip .com to get those details.

Now, I forgot to mention at the beginning, Paul, I'm going to have next week. We're going to have

Dr. Jason Lyle on. Excellent. And you know, yeah, so he's going to come in.

And for folks who don't know him, he's he's a little bit of a smart dude, don't you think? Well, and one very good thing about the fact that he's going to be on next week is if you've got any listeners, any viewers coming in shortly who've got very difficult questions to ask about astronomy and about starlight issues, how light got across the universe and so on.

I would have tried to tackle those with Jason's ideas because I've tried to read through them, but maybe it would be a lot easier.

I can tell people simply hold on to your question for next week. All difficult astronomy questions can be given to Dr.

Lyle next week instead of fielded to me. Yeah. If any of you are interested, by the way, in coming to visit

Mount St. Helens, we are here all year. The people can come and and take an excursion.

But we will be doing a special an extra special anniversary vacation, which will be from August the 18th through the 22nd.

Next, next year, we will be shortly getting a website up and running for that.

And that will be a big event where you'll have a number of speakers who will be able to who will be giving you information generally about biblical creation issues.

And also we'll be taking you out into the field to have a look at things, have a look at different places around the volcano.

And even one of our speakers will be taking people down into the or at least to the rim of the

Little Grand Canyon close to the volcano. So we'll have Dr. Steve Austin here and Dr.

Keith Swenson and also Eric Hovind and Jay Seagert and myself.

And there'll probably be some other people as well. So look out for that, please. That's something that is is being organized for next

August, being organized by Living Waters Bible Camp of Wisconsin. And they're organizing that on our behalf for next

August. Yeah. So, you know, here's a question you can see on the screen that Melanie had asked is said,

Hi, so glad I found this. Is there any guided group hikes plan to climb

Mount St. Helens in the future? OK, well, I don't climb Mount St.

Helens because, as you can see, I'm an overweight middle aged man. So the excursions I take people on are car excursions.

We do some short hikes, too. And there are a large number of those things and you can find them on our website.

I can point you in the direction of some organizations that do trips up the south side of the volcano to the to the rim.

That's really beyond me. But what we're doing is showing people the area in ways that everyone can access and telling you about the history and putting everything into a biblical context for you.

So those those are frequently there on our website. We're coming to the end of the season, though. We still do have a few more.

For example, we do have an excursion around the south side of the volcano timed for September the 27th,

Friday, September the 27th. That's an open excursion and still has plenty of spaces available on that.

So if you want to go join us on that one and walk into the lava canyon and have a look at the entrance to the ape cave and things of that sort, then come and join us on Friday, September 27th.

And keep an eye on what else is on our website for events in the area. Yeah, so and the website, again, for folks that might be listening on the podcast,

I'll have links in the show notes is MSH Mount St. Helens kind of that's what that stands for,

Mount St. Helens, MSH creation center dot org. And so go check that out.

You know, she had another question and we got some people coming in and we'll go to them, but she did ask a question.

She had also said, and can you answer a question about how carbon dating could be wrong?

OK, in a sense, I'd want to know exactly what she understands by carbon dating there, because serious evolutionists would not make the mistake that the popular press and TV programs and even some high school science teachers make because quite often carbon dating is misunderstood.

So, for example, when I get an email from someone telling me, well, they've carbon dated dinosaur fossils to be 65 million years old.

I'll contact them back and say, no, they haven't. And it's just as simple as that. They haven't carbon dated dinosaur fossils to be 65 million years old because carbon dating, even if the earth was this old, carbon dating doesn't actually give you an age of greater than 100 ,000 years at the maximum.

So really, some of the problems with people talking about carbon dating are a misunderstanding of what it is.

Carbon dating actually is a pretty good technique for what it's meant for if it's used properly.

It's based on the idea that there is a radioactive isotope of carbon. Carbon normally, the most common isotope of carbon is carbon 12.

But you can produce a radioactive isotope, carbon 14, by bombardment of nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere by neutrons from the sun.

So any living object is going to be bringing in all sorts of carbon, including carbon 14, and also removing those by different processes of their plants, by transpiration, by photosynthesis for animals, by respiration, different techniques.

It's eating, of course, an excretion. There's carbon 14 coming in, carbon 14 going out.

The assumption then is that while an object is alive, the amount of carbon 14, the percentage of carbon 14 in that body is constant.

When it dies, dead animals don't eat anything. So the amount of carbon 14 will go down because each carbon 14 atom, there is a possibility of it decaying by radioactive decay, turning back into nitrogen 14.

So you can measure how much carbon 14 there is in a dead object, and you can use that to calculate then how old that object is.

Now, you have to make assumptions to do that calculation. You have to assume that not only do all living things today have a constant amount of carbon 14, you've got to assume that they did in the past too.

Now, that assumption cannot be proved. You also got to assume that there's no other mechanism that's removed carbon 14.

And you've also got to assume that the half -life of carbon 14 hasn't changed.

With some other of the so -called longer -term radiometric dating methods, like uranium lead and so on, that work on igneous rocks, we can show that those assumptions simply do not work.

So this is the point. When you're measuring something, what the scientists are doing is measuring the amount of carbon 14, or in the case of uranium lead, they're measuring the amount of uranium and they're measuring the amount of lead.

The calculation of age is then based on a number of assumptions, and those assumptions are not provable and can, in fact, prove wrong.

One final thing I'll quickly say about carbon 14, it's not difficult to find on the Internet examples of diamonds that may have been dated by a radiometric method, such as potassium argon, to be about a billion years old.

And find, of course, that's a billion years old, it should not have any carbon 14 in, that no carbon 14 should be left, it should all have decayed.

And yet the diamonds do have carbon 14 in, giving them a carbon 14 age of something like about 65 ,000 years.

Now, I don't believe the diamonds are 65 ,000 years old, and I don't believe they're a billion years old, I don't believe either value is correct.

But I'm sure that even people who don't take a biblical view can see that both numbers cannot be correct, there is a problem there, something is wrong.

Yes, I agree. Now, let me, let's, before we go to Ralph here, who has a question, I want to, KT has a quick one for you.

Which part of England is Paul originally from? I'm from, well,

I usually tell, when people ask me, I usually tell them that I'm from Manchester. Okay, Manchester is England's second city.

So it's in the north of England. So I'm from Manchester. Now, if you wanted to be absolutely exact,

I'm actually from a small town called Staly Bridge, about eight miles east of Manchester. But Manchester is the nearest big place that you've heard of to where I was brought up.

You know, one of the funny things when I was over in England, doing some evangelism for the Olympics back some years ago, we got to tour

Oxford. And one of the, you know, we were just, okay, so we're going through London and looking at dates on buildings and being like, wow,

I mean, like, there's buildings that are way older than, than the United States of America. And we're just always amazed with these dates of buildings in like, you know, and monuments and things from the 1500s and stuff like that.

It was, it was really kind of funny. The professor from Oxford sat down, we're talking about this.

And he says, well, you know, you folks in America think a hundred years is a long time.

That's right. And we here in England think a hundred miles is a far distance. That's absolutely right.

You know, how long does it take to drive from Manchester to London? Probably about three, between three and four hours, you know, and these days

I'm quite happy to view something three and four hours drive away as being local. Whereas, you know, when you're in England, that's an entirely different region.

We even speak with a different accent. Yeah, it was funny.

My son, you know, growing up in New Jersey, New Jersey, I mean, from where we are out an hour and a half in any direction, we're out of the state.

You know, it's not that big of a state. My son moves to Texas, I mean, in the middle of Texas.

And he was like, oh, we're going to go to a friend's for the weekend for a long weekend in New Mexico. Like, well, text me when you leave.

Text me when you get there. You know, I'm a concerned father. He texts me when he leaves. He texts me about 10 hours later.

The text was 10 hours and we're still in Texas. Big place, isn't that?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, he it was a rude awakening. He got out there and like it wasn't more than a week or so.

He's like, dad, you know, everyone out here, they drive with like rifles in the back of their car. I was like, yeah, welcome to America.

Well, the one thing that people will know or to know about Manchester, of course, if you're interested in following soccer or football, as everyone else in the world calls it, mainly because it's played with a ball on the feet, it

Manchester has really two very well known, two really good soccer teams, one's called

Manchester City and the other is the Manchester City Reserve team. All right, well, let's let me get that's a joke that for people who are interested in English soccer, you know, they'll get it and I'll get

I'll get emails about that. Let me bring Ralph in. So, Ralph, welcome.

What questions or challenges do you have for us tonight? Hey, thanks, Andrew. Thanks, Paul. My eight year old had a question, but he's gone to bed now.

Is there any chance of Mount? I know I have to share this with him. Wake him up. He wants to stay up late anyway.

Yeah, he was wondering, is there any chance of Mount St. Helen erupting again?

Or there's been talk in the past five years of the super volcano and Yellowstone area.

What is the latest on that? Well, you know that all the all the volcanoes in the

Cascade Range are active volcanoes, so any of them could erupt. Of course,

Mount St. Helen's did erupt again. It erupted a few times between 2004 and 2008.

So it it has erupted again. It's pretty common for Mount St. Helen's to erupt.

What was uncommon was for it to erupt violently because most eruptions of the volcano are not terribly big.

And the eruptions between 2004 and 2008 were not very spectacular and did not cause any difficulties in the area, really.

And of course, Mount St. Helen's can't really build up the pressure to do a devastating eruption because half the mountain's gone.

So I think the chances of having a huge eruption at Mount St. Helen's are remote.

But the other volcanoes in the Cascade Range could go. And of course, the volcano, one volcano that is counted as probably the most dangerous volcano in the contiguous 48 states would be

Mount Rainier, just, you know, a couple of hours north of here, because that's the largest volcano in the

Cascade Range, hasn't had a major eruption probably for about a thousand years. And if it did erupt, would cause a lot of damage to the big cities of Washington, such as Seattle and Tacoma and places like that.

All right. You have any other questions, Ralph? One that's one, if I could,

Paul, I've always wondered about this when it came to Creation Week and after,

I guess, if it had everything gone the way it had planned to go, how how would it have worked with Adam and Eve in the different seasons?

Would we have always had a tropical layer or. Or. How would the seasons, how would that all work out with the rotation and yeah,

God says in Genesis one, let's just look at what Scripture says, because it's very important on these things to stick to what

Scripture says. So on day four of creation, this is when

God made the astronomical objects. And I don't think Jason's going to say anything different from what

I'm going to say now. It says here in Genesis chapter one, verse 14,

God said, let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. Let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.

So that God actually intended that there to be seasons in the perfect world that was set up in in the creation week.

Now, seasons are caused by the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and also by the angle of the angle of declension, the fact that the the polar axis of the

Earth, the axis of rotation of the Earth is set to an angle to the perpendicular of the of the orbital plane to an angle of about 23 degrees.

So what I'm saying here is that that angle must have been like that during creation week.

Therefore, I don't think it would have been very different. I'm also quite sure that before the flood and therefore probably even during creation week as well, there would have been regional variations because we like regional variations.

I'm not saying there would be extremes, the sort of extreme cold and extreme hot that causes injury to people wouldn't have been put in place in creation week.

But, you know, we need variety to keep the air moving, to keep it cleansed and so on.

God would have put these systems in place. So I think that there were different climates before the flood as well.

And some people have suggested that the different layers that we get in the rocks are due to different ecosystems, different climates in different parts of the pre -flood

Earth. So from that point of view, while it was created as a perfect world without the extremes, without the dangers we have today, without volcanoes, without such matters, nevertheless, it was a world of variety, a world where God had set things up so that there would be seasons in the world.

So, Paul, with that, let me ask you, because I think you and I think also

Jason Lyle would have a view that's different than what many creationists have been taught about a canopy.

Well, most creationists haven't used the canopy theory for about 30 years.

That is well out of date. Now, it does take time sometimes to catch up with these things, but no, there could not have been a vapor canopy above the atmosphere.

And there are scriptural reasons and scientific reasons. The scriptural reasons would be that God separated waters from waters with the firmament.

So if we look at that there, it's in Genesis 1, verse 6. I'm reading from the

ESV here. It says, God said, let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters. Let it separate the waters from the waters.

Expanse is a good translation. King James Version has firmament. What's the

Hebrew word that's being translated there is rakia, and rakia is related to the concept of something spreading, just like metal being hammered.

What we're saying then is that the thing that's stretching, scripture tells us that God has stretched the universe.

He stretched the universe. It tells us in Isaiah that God stretched the heavens like a curtain.

So what God was doing there was stretching waters from waters. It seems most obvious to us, therefore, that the waters above would be beyond the edge of the universe.

This is to do with the stretching of the universe. We know that the universe is still stretching at a slow rate, not as fast as it was in the creation week, but it's still stretching at a slow rate because that's what gives us the redshift effects that we use to be able to measure how far away stars are.

So that's where we see that. Also, another thing from scripture, if I may, Psalm 148, it says, praise him, you waters above.

Now, Psalm 148 was written after the flood, quite a long while after the flood. So the waters above are still there.

In other words, they could not have collapsed from the outside of the atmosphere at the time of the flood because they were never at the outside of the atmosphere.

They were beyond the edge of space. The Rakhir is not the atmosphere. It's the entirety of space.

Now that the scriptural arguments are always the most important. But scientifically, if there had been a canopy of water vapor, we know that water is the most important greenhouse gas.

That, by the way, short bunny trail is why we should not be in the least bit concerned about carbon dioxide concentrations.

You know, all the stuff that the global warming people tell us. There are things we can say about that, you know, it's not scriptural.

But water vapor would, if you had a vapor canopy, that would have actually made the surface of the earth absolutely unbearable for life.

And yet God says that he made it, he made it perfect. The conditions during the creation week must have been the best that they've ever been.

So for those scriptural reasons and scientific reasons, we don't follow the canopy theory.

The source of water has to have been the fountains of the great deep, because that's what comes first.

In Genesis 7, the flood was triggered by the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven.

So in the mantle of the earth, there's still superheated water there today.

Superheated water must have come up through cracks in the crust at the bottom of the ocean, the great deep, in other words.

And superheated water would have been thrown high into the atmosphere. When that came down, that would have come down as rain, which is what's meant by the windows of heaven.

That's why there was a source of water that was sufficient to keep going for 40 days and 40 nights.

Because there simply isn't enough water in the atmosphere, in clouds, to produce 40 days worth of rain.

But there was in what happened at the beginning of the flood, so that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and that the earth was flooded that way.

OK, Mr. Taylor, but people have proven that there must be a canopy because we had people living to like 900 years old.

And then after the flood, we must have had effects of the earth, you know, the sun's radiation.

That's why everyone is only 60 years old now. Argue that backwards, please. I mean, the idea that there were dangerous rays firing at the earth, but the canopy would protect that doesn't seem to make sense if God made a perfect world.

That's not the way we look at it. So argue it backwards. Let's start from scripture. Clearly, the ages of the patriarchs decays after the flood.

That is definitely true. Now, why would they? Why would they decay after the flood? The answer is because you've got a genetic bottleneck that you didn't have before the flood.

There were only eight people who survived the flood. They were on the ark and they're principally from one family.

So there's a genetic bottleneck as the earth is repopulated. And that's those genetic defects and mutations that would happen from that point that reduce the age.

And that makes a lot more sense anyway than bombardment from the atmosphere. If bombardment from the atmosphere was now coming on the earth, then why did

Shem still live for a long time? You know, Shem was born before the flood, but he carried on living.

Whereas if the bombardment of the earth was suddenly increased because of a vapor canopy not being there, then he should have dropped dead much earlier.

He should have died around the age of 70. But he didn't because the decay of ages was not to do with bombardment from the sun.

It was to do with this genetic with these genetic mutations. And therefore, those genetic mutations follow what looks pretty nearly an exponential decay curve.

If you plot the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 11, you will see that you get what looks pretty much like an exponential decay curve, which is precisely what you would expect with the increase in genetic mutations after the genetic bottleneck of the flood.

You know, a great book to discuss that is, and I forget who wrote it off hand, but Genetic Entropy.

Yes. And that goes into great detail. And that book actually mathematically shows when we look at the decay we have in the

DNA, that it is mathematically impossible for humans to have been on earth for millions of years.

I don't know if you remember. You may be looking it up now to who wrote that. I forget who wrote it. I think it's John Sanford.

Let me look that up. Yeah, I am just looking at it quickly. I'm pretty certain it's John. Yes, it is. I'm right. It is

John Sanford. Yeah, John Sanford, Genetic Entropy. You know, some other books, since we're mentioning it, that we can recommend to folks.

If you want to get some books on, you know, there was talk earlier about carbon dating. Dr. Anthony Silvestro of Striving for Eternity Ministries has a book out called

On the Origin of Kinds. If you're looking in the video, it's right there, right there.

But you can get that at strivingforeternity .org in our store. Another book that you've written since we were talking earlier about six days of creation, you have actually you have a couple of books.

You have a book, forgetting the exact title, but In Six Days, I believe. And then you have another.

You're talking about the six days of Genesis. The six days of Genesis is the book that you're referring to.

A book about dating methods, a very important new book about dating methods would be

Deep Time by my friend Michael Ord, which would be well worth getting hold of.

And so, yeah, Six Days of Genesis is my book on the subject.

If you want a book that goes into detail for the layman on the flood, then my book

Don't Miss the Boat would be what you might find useful at that point. And if you want to know about how

I did that calculation earlier about how old the earth is, then my book The Biblical Age of the

Earth would cover that one. So that's three of my books. And you can get all of them if you want at MSH, that stands for Mount St.

Helens, mshcreationcenter .org, and you'll be able to get all of them. So, Ralph, do you have any other questions for us tonight?

No, I appreciate it. Thank you so much. All right. Well, if you have another question, I'll just put you backstage there and there's a private chat.

You can say, hey, let me back in if you have another question. All right. Thanks again. All right.

We're going to bring Ivan in here. Ivan is someone that I've actually gotten to meet in person long, long, long ago.

We did some evangelism together and he had some he had several questions for you,

Paul. So I'll let him go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. I'm wondering why does the

T -Rex soft tissue evidence seem to get so little attention? I really don't seem to hear much about it.

It really gets very little attention because it's embarrassing to evolutionists, isn't it?

Mary Schweitzer was the lady who found the soft tissue originally.

And one of the problems is that, you know, people said it couldn't happen that way because soft tissue shouldn't survive the 65 million years since T -Rex became extinct.

Now, Mary Schweitzer is an evolutionist and she stuck to her guns nevertheless and says, no, there is definitely soft tissue.

So you can see the soft tissue there. Now, what the scientists are doing now is that the last couple of reports

I've seen on it is that they seem to be trying to work out a sort of pickling mechanism, if you like, some sort of mechanism that would explain why the soft tissue has lasted for 65 million years.

So you can see that what they're doing here is not what we might call Baconian science, not using the

Baconian scientific method. When you use the Baconian scientific method, you're supposed to look for results and then see what the conclusion of that would be.

Well, if you've got results that say you've got soft tissue of an animal here, then an unfossilized material, then you're saying it cannot be 65 million years old and you have to look for an age that's less than that.

But instead of doing that, they say, no, it has to be 65 million years old because that's how old the dinosaurs were.

That's when they went extinct. Therefore, we've got to look for something else. That shows how it's been preserved.

And of course, they can't find such a thing. Now, one creation scientist,

Mark Armitage, has spent quite a bit of time studying this himself, and he's written papers on the subject.

He found he was able to dig up the horn of a triceratops and find soft tissue in that.

And the reason for him doing that, why that was such an important thing to do, was so that he had access to it.

In other words, it was there for creationists to investigate. And he makes his material available for creationists to look at as well.

Whereas, you know, evolutionists are embarrassed by the whole business of soft tissue as well.

What they're doing is they're starting from a false presupposition, and they're building everything on that presupposition.

Well, they would claim, of course, not to have any presuppositions, to be neutral. But it is not, in fact, possible to be neutral on anything.

So they have a false presupposition. Now, we are not neutral either. We have a presupposition, but that presupposition is that the

Bible is true. So we will always filter what we know through the lens of Scripture being true, because that is what

God has given to us. Now, you mentioned Mark, and he was in the news recently in a good way, because many folks may have heard of him.

Because when he did this research and put out the papers, he was fired from a tenured position at a university.

And recently, the court has ruled in his favor. That's correct. California State University of Northridge had to pay him a large settlement because they fired him when he had tenure.

Now, why did they fire him? Basically, because they didn't like the conclusions that he discovered.

And this is the thing that you always I mean, it's so frustrating when people are like, well, has this been double blind studied?

There's no scientists that believe it. Well, no, the fact is, when a scientist does teach what is what they find, they get fired, which is realistically, people say, well, why would, you know,

Mary Snyder, like, why would she come up with a theory that would explain for the

T -Rex red blood cells? Well, very simply, she wants to keep her job. I mean, you don't you do not keep your job teaching a biblical creation.

And it's a great movie to see on that would be Ben Stein's and Ben Stein's Jewish. He's not a

Christian, but he did the movie Expelled. And he basically showed all these people that when they teach, even, you know, intelligent design, they get fired.

If you teach that there is a God, that the evidence points to a creator, then you can lose your job.

I like what Donnie Jack said in the comments earlier. Creation is proof of a creator. So atheists don't exist.

So, Ivan, you had some more questions. I don't know. I don't know if that fully answered the first. That's good.

I mean, I'm sort of wondering why creationists don't hammer the point harder. Well, I can quickly answer that.

Of course, we do. But where do we get heard? You know, Mark Armitage has to support all his own research from his own funds.

Now, the settlement he got helps. But, you know, I do know that he has to appeal for further funds.

I think his website's MarkArmitage .org, but certainly it wouldn't take much to find him.

And I know that if you want to support some creation research, some actual scientific research from someone who's at the cutting edge of things there, that would be it.

So a lot of this, you know, we're not rich people so often, despite the fact that some people have accused me of saying, well, you're only in creationism, you know, for the money.

I think, well, there's quite a few things I could have done that would have paid quite a lot more than this. But there we go.

And that's the issue. You know, we don't have the funds. And of course, you don't get the access to the peer reviewed science journals.

A lot of evolutionists say, well, if you've got the evidence, you know, publish it. But of course, you'll find, as Mark did, that you cannot publish in the secular evolutionary journals because they will filter what they want to what they actually want published in there.

And they will not be publishing evidence that doesn't fit with their paradigm. You know, it's funny. I remember

I'm not going to give the name because I don't know if he wants this now, but there was a professor, a university professor at Brown University who, you know, he retired and went to work at ICR.

And it was funny because he said that all of his friends from the university said, what happened to you?

You used to be so smart. I know who you're referring to. Yes. Yeah.

And it's very telling because what that does is it it it shows what they're thinking is that he used to he didn't change his view any.

It's just that now that he wasn't working at the university, he had the liberty to say what he always believed without fear of losing his job.

And of course, he is a very smart man, if he's the person I'm thinking of. And he is a very smart man.

Yeah, he is intelligent. So, Ivan, you have another question, I think I saw earlier in comments.

Yeah, it's not exactly creation. Maybe it is, but it's I'm wondering what aspects of global warming is are most profitable to discuss.

Are there certain points that are better or worse to bring up when you're trying to reason with someone? It's it isn't off topic,

OK? It's not one that I'm a full expert on, though. It is something I am currently researching.

I'm getting more and more information on the subject. I have been asked to speak at a major conference in the

Pacific Northwest next year on this topic. So, yeah, if we look at the end of Genesis chapter eight, this is what it says at the end of Genesis chapter eight.

While the earth remains, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.

Now, a certain well -known politician, I'm not sure whether we should name the said, but I'm not even going to say the gender at the moment.

A certain well -known politician has said recently that the earth is going to completely come to an end in 12 years.

Oh, you're talking about Al Gore. Oh, wait, no, wait. That was about 20 years ago. He said it would end in 10 years.

I'm sorry. Oh, he said he said that we were all the polar ice cap would have melted by 2014.

That's what Al Gore said. OK, well, there's still a bit of ice there, you know. Now, I was thinking of Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez.

OK, she said the world's going to come to an end in 12 years and therefore we need to cut emissions.

Gave her, you know, a great education on understanding global warming and the science. Absolutely. Yeah, of course, we know that the earth has not been warming uniformly.

We know that for many years after the year 2000, the earth was actually cooling year on year while the the profits of global warming were on the increase really at that time.

But that's why, of course, they don't call it global warming anymore. Now, they like to call it climate change because it doesn't matter whether the temperature goes up or goes down.

It's all our fault. Actually, actually, no, they've changed that again. You're not we're not to use climate change now.

The new term is extreme weather. Yeah. And so they've changed it again.

Right. Well, all these all these things are the fault of human beings because we're a cancer on the surface of the earth.

And it would be much better if we all drop dead and let the animals get on with it. Well, you know, these things are worth pursuing.

People should be should know that the concentration of carbon dioxide is not great.

Less than point three percent. And it varies. It varies. And of course, there are other gases which are more potent in the atmosphere to do with greenhouse effect.

The principal one being water vapor. So that has a much greater effect on the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide does of the point three percent in the of that point three percent.

It is something like less than a one one hundredth of that is actually caused by artificial emissions, industrial emissions.

So the amount of carbon dioxide caused by emissions is very, very small.

Now, of course, many people are these days telling us that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Well, it's a very odd pollutant, isn't it? An odd pollutant that all plants require in order to grow.

And if you increase the amount of carbon dioxide, then you get more plant growth. And if you get more plant growth, you're going to get more oxygen being released from this photosynthesis process and you're going to get animals being able to survive as well.

These things are cyclical. The infamous hockey stick graph that Dr.

Mann, I can't remember his first name, Dr. Mann invented that Al Gore put such a lot of faith in, missed out entirely whole periods in history when the

Earth was warmer than it is even today. You know, it is pretty well established that there was a medieval warm period.

Why do you think Greenland is called Greenland? Surely it should be called Whiteland since it's covered with ice. Well, it's called

Greenland because when Vikings first got there, it was a green and pleasant land. You know, you said you'd been to England, Andrew, and if you go to the north of England, you shouldn't be able to grow vineyards there.

But of course, in Roman times, they were growing vineyards around York and so on because climate has altered.

There was a warm period. And then we went down into a little ice age. And when our modern scientific era was just beginning, and so thermometers were beginning to be developed and people were measuring temperatures, we were only just coming out of that little ice age.

In other words, the temperature of the Earth was at the lowest it really could have been within these cycles.

So obviously, as the Earth got back to normal, you're going to see a rise in temperature for much of the 20th century.

These things are cyclical. And by the way, sometimes people notice that there is, you know, the graphs of carbon dioxide concentrations seem to correlate with average global temperature.

But people should remember that correlation is not causation. And in fact, it's the carbon dioxide concentration that follows the temperature, not the other way around.

So in other words, carbon dioxide concentration has not caused a change in temperature. A change in temperature has caused a change in carbon dioxide concentration.

Why? Because carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water. And when you have gases dissolved in water, gases are less soluble at higher temperatures.

So there's a lot of carbon dioxide therefore dissolved in the oceans. If the oceans get warmer, less carbon dioxide can dissolve.

So they will give off carbon dioxide, making the concentration in the atmosphere greater. So the concentration of carbon dioxide follows the mean global temperature, not the other way around.

But these are natural cyclical effects and are nothing to do with the Earth coming to an end in some major catastrophe.

Remember what it says in scripture? God says that while the Earth remains, these things, these seasons are not going to change.

So we're not going to bring them to an end by these things. Does that mean that we are

OK polluting the Earth? No, of course not. We have a responsibility of stewardship over the

Earth, which we should take seriously. So we shouldn't be polluting the

Earth, causing damage. But this whole business about global warming, climate change, extreme weather, whatever you want to call it, it is very much a mythology.

And I'll just say one quick last thing. If you want the experts on this subject who really studied this from a biblical point of view, please go and have a look at the website

CornwallAlliance .org, which is led by Dr. Kal Beisner. And you'll get a lot of information there, scientific and biblical, on the subject of global warming.

It was Cornwall Wallace? CornwallAlliance .org. All one word,

CornwallAlliance .org. All right, maybe you could put that in the in the comments and we'll make sure we get it right.

Sure, I'll type it in now. So here's what I think about, Ivan, when it comes to global warming. OK, there's a couple of factors.

One, there are a lot of things that affect the temperatures on the

Earth that we have to take into account. Things like we have solar flares.

We have a lot of things outside of the Earth. We have the magnetic field affects it.

The fact that we have this changing of the magnetic field every once in a while. There's a lot of different factors.

But here's what ends up happening. These people that do the research, they basically say,

OK, we're going to ignore solar flares, ignore any solar activity. We're going to ignore the magnetic force or basically ignore everything that's not human.

And the proof of that is, oh, I'm trying to remember the year. This is probably in the early 2000s.

They someone hacked into in over and they had where they're doing all the research and was being compiled.

And someone hacked in and released to the Internet all the records that they had on global warming.

Yes. And most of the stuff that they were producing was false data. Yes. We're not reporting proper data.

They were there and they even released memos from the director saying that we needed to do this to force the politicians to take global warming seriously.

And so what you end up having is you had you had them saying that they couldn't put the real data out.

They had to put fake data out to try and force the politicians. And when this blew up, this guy tried to do a cop out by going, well,

I'm I'm not a politician. I'm just a scientist. I just do the science. And my argument is, dude, you left science when you tried to affect politics, when you ignored the science and made up data to try to force politicians to behave a certain way.

Then you left science and entered into politics. And therefore, no, I think I think it is fair game to go after someone that does that.

But yes, what you end up seeing that they do is they ignore everything outside of of human interaction.

In fact, you have there behind you a picture of Mount St. Helens behind Paul there. Mount St.

Helens did more to blow a hole in in the you know, they always talk about the this hole that's over, you know, the ozone hole over the northern pole.

And they say, oh, see, it's it's growing. It's growing. Well, every time there's a big volcano that does more than the two nuclear bombs that we dropped on Japan.

So, I mean, we can't come up with more than nuclear bombs. And yet a single volcano does more damage than an atomic bomb to the ozone hole.

So the Earth itself, in their theory, is doing far more damage than we could do.

But the reality is that ozone holes closed up already. So what's the problem?

Right. This is the issue they have is that we're seeing that, as Paul said, this cyclical cycle, it's getting colder and colder.

And you're seeing them try to explain that away by not saying global warming. I remember you're too young,

Ivan. You're way too young to remember this. But maybe Paul would remember when I was a kid.

I might be too young as well. Yeah, I remember you were around, you were around in King George's time, weren't you?

I got to use a British reference. So, you know, actually here, wait,

I should. So here's here's a video I got from the library. Paul will like, you know, the British royals.

I'm going to look forward to watching that tonight. Um, but but but the thing is that when when

I was a kid, they were talking about a coming ice age. Yes. Now, what was the solution to the coming ice age?

You know, it was government intervention. We needed the government to take control. Well, now we have global warming.

What's the solution? The government had to take control. Now we're getting cooling again. What do you think the conclusion is going to be to solve that one?

Hmm. It sounds like it's really not a scientific issue. It's a political. It is very much a political issue.

It's a geopolitical issue. You're right. Governments, this idea that governments can take control and do these things.

But also there's a little bit more to it even than that, because if what they said was true.

And climate was going to cause a major problem, you've got to see that climate is not confined to the borders of any one country.

So in order to do anything about global warming, if there were such a problem, you would have to have international laws that would actually supersede the laws of any individual nation.

Basically, what they're saying is you would have to give control of all nations over to the United Nations. They could run everything because what a good job they would do of it all.

So that's really where you've got a problem. You're dealing with something that would begin to undermine the nation state.

And there is a theological objection to that. And so there are things there that we can be examining both in the science and then what scripture says about how climate is going to be.

And also in the sort of solutions to this non -existent problem that politicians are offering.

Those solutions themselves are unbiblical and we need to call them out on it. I mean,

I think this is one of many attempts that we've seen to try to create a one, like a universal type government that is liberal.

You know, we end up seeing that there's many who they've tried different attempts.

Global warming was one attempt. It really didn't succeed because, you know, they want to do this in the

Western world and they come up with all these things in the Western world for doing this stuff.

But who's the greatest offender when we look at all this carbon emissions and all? China. And China doesn't care a whit what kind of things the rest of the world comes up with.

They don't care. They're not following it. It's not an issue. China won't follow it and India won't follow it.

And here's another reason that sort of gets me really a bit worked up about the whole business about global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it.

One of the things that they want to do is they want to cut carbon emissions. So therefore, they tell us that we should not be using fossil fuels.

Now, you look at a country like, for example, Botswana, which is doing a very good job at bringing its infrastructure infrastructure up to date.

What did Western countries do when they wanted to industrialize their countries? They used a lot of coal and a lot of oil, but especially a lot of coal.

And Botswana has large coal reserves. And they would find it very useful to be able to modernize their countries, to be able to burn coal and to be able to produce electrical power stations so that households were not having to burn the animal and human excrement that they do quite often now.

Leading to all sorts of diseases. But of course, they're being told they can't do that. There will not be aid for such countries.

Aid will be cut off if they start burning extra fossil fuels. Now, basically, to put in a nutshell what

I've just said, the international community that are in that are bothered about these this so -called global warming are trying to keep many so -called third world countries in poverty.

It's a form of modern colonialism. Let's actually tell you what fuel you're allowed to use.

And we will not allow you to have the technology that we actually adopted in the past in order to modernize our countries.

So they shouldn't be pretending that they're on the side of the poor. Far from it. They are keeping people, millions of people throughout the world in abject poverty by the ridiculous regulations that they are trying to impose on other people's countries.

In fact, I mean, if you think about it, if we didn't have global warming or if we did actually have global warming, we could feed a whole lot more people.

Yes. I mean, because as Paul said, in England, where you can't have the vines today.

OK, but if we had global warming, you could. You could actually feed more people because you'd be able to grow more food.

Here in where I'm at in New Jersey, we only have a couple of months that we can that we can end up growing, you know, having a growing season.

Well, I used to garden now. I travel too much in the summer. My garden just went out there today.

It's nothing but weeds, weeds everywhere. I got to do some some work out there. But but we only have a couple of months.

If if we had two more months of of harvest, well, we could feed a whole lot more people.

Right. So that should be a good thing. Right. There'll be some thinking for folks.

So you have any more questions, Ivan? No, that's it. Thank you, guys. OK, well, thank you for those are good questions.

Thank you. I'm going to put you in the back backstage there. And if you have any more questions, just shoot me a message in the private chat.

All right. Great. So thanks. We're going to go, as always, Paul, I did I did warn you of this.

I did warn you beforehand that we have a regular who always likes to come in whenever we have a new guest.

And it is traditional Catholic. And so he's

I just brought him in. He can unmute himself. I think it's

James, right? I keep forgetting. I'm sorry. Is it James or Peter? Yeah, but but in this case,

Andrew, it's somebody that I agree with. Unlike you, I don't agree with you. I agree with Paul Taylor.

Well, you might not, but for long. What question do you have for for us tonight?

Well, Paul Taylor, I'm glad I'm actually very glad that you have these young earth creationists on your program like Dr.

Silvestro and Paul Taylor. And if you could invite perhaps maybe even

Kent Holman or Dr. Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute.

But the thing is, I wanted to know, Paul Taylor, if you ever heard of the

Diamond Brothers of the Most Holy Family Monastery, because they have put forth several videos whereby they present evidence for a young earth.

And I don't know if you've ever heard of this. It's they made two points that they made several points, but there's two that really stand out to me.

And one of them is the fact that when you look at galaxies throughout the universe and astronomers look at galaxies, they see that there is a huge number of supernovae in many of these galaxies.

And based on their calculations of the age of our own galaxy, there should be a huge number of supernovae that had taken place.

And yet there isn't. There's hardly any supernova. And they present that as one evidence of, you know, a young, not just a young earth, but a young universe.

And also with regards to evolution, the very fact that DNA needs

RNA and RNA needs DNA, neither of which can come about on their own.

And evolution has to have a starting point, which scientists claim is abiogenesis.

And yet they can't explain how DNA and RNA comes about. That right there suggests that, you know, for example, a book can't write itself, so somebody has to write the pages of a book and RNA and DNA are actual code, so they can't come about on their own.

So they present this as evidence that I just wanted to see if you could speak on on both that the supernovae, if you know anything about that, and the dilemma that scientists have with regards to DNA and RNA.

OK, I'll have to go back over what you said about the supernova again in a minute because my mind's a bit buzzing on these things.

DNA and RNA, you're quite correct. It is a code. And therefore, as a code, it obeys the laws of information science.

You know, the first law of information science is that information does not arise from matter.

It is not possible for matter to spontaneously produce information.

This doesn't happen. It's very interesting, of course, that the Search for Extraterrestrial Life Institute, SETI, one of their criteria for finding extraterrestrial life is actually if they found a signal somewhere in the universe that was clearly a code signal, not a regular pulsing, but an actual code signal.

That would show that it had been produced by an intelligence somewhere. And yet here we are in the microscopic world.

You've got DNA, which is clearly shows a code. And that code must have been produced by an intelligence.

Now, I would say that I'm quite happy to use that argument at that point and say, you know, that is consistent with a belief in God.

I don't use that to prove God. And this may be where we start to part company, because, of course,

I would start from a presupposition of believing scripture to be true. But given that we can say that that DNA clearly is a code, it clearly is a language, and it makes no sense to suggest that it could have evolved randomly.

Well, not only does it not make sense, it is scientifically impossible for it to have evolved randomly.

It can only have been produced by being made by God. Now, I notice in the comment that you've put,

I presume it's you who've put it in the private chat area, you've put all true Catholics are young earth creationists.

I'm not familiar with the Diamond Brothers. I am, however, familiar with the Colby Center.

And I have, I did write an article some years ago in 2006 on the

Answers in Genesis website, because the previous

Pope Book One, well, it was actually under Pope Benedict at the time,

Benedict the Sixth, he was Pope at the time. And there had been an article come out from the

Vatican called The Gift of Scripture. And the Colby Center, which is a group of creationist

Catholics, objected to that document because, of course, the document was accepting of the theory of evolution using the non -overlapping magisteria theory.

And so the Colby Center objected to that. And I wrote an article on that where I did point out that their position within the

Catholic Church is, to some extent, analogous to our position within Protestant churches.

But there is going to be a significant difference because of our starting points. And it's those starting points that matter.

One of the problems with saying that all true

Catholics are young earth creationists is, of course, I mean, I would say that anyone who's got their eyes opened ought to be a creationist and a biblical creationist using the biblical timescale.

Of course, an evolutionist would point out that saying that all true Catholics are young earth creationists is a logical fallacy in the sense of being the no true

Scotsman fallacy. You know, the no true Scotsman fallacy? Hamish is saying that no true

Scotsman ever put, no Scotsman ever put salt on the porridge. And it's pointed out to him that Jock does put salt on his porridge.

And therefore, he says, well, no true Scotsman would ever do that. In the same way, of course, we have to point out that many people in positions of authority in the

Roman Catholic Church are quite happy to accept the theory of evolution.

And we're not simply talking about Pope Francis. And I would take your point that Pope Francis doesn't seem to be representative of traditional

Catholic opinion. But, you know, previous popes, Pope Benedict was supposed to have been a traditional

Catholic. John Paul the second. These are people who spoke about evolution. And of course, you've got the

Vatican observatories that will talk about the Big Bang theory. And so generally speaking, those who are in positions of authority in the

Roman Catholic Church seem to have be quite happy to mix their version of Christianity with the theory of evolution.

You might have to remind me of your points about the supernova so I can comment on that side, because I'm sorry

I got a bit confused. Well, the thing is, you had mentioned that they're the hierarchy, but we traditional

Catholics don't accept them as the hierarchy because they are promoters of the Vatican to council. We believe that they departed from the one true

Holy Catholic Church ever since the 1960s, because the Vatican to council actually contradicts infallible traditional dogmatic teachings of the

Holy Catholic Church. And so they're modernists. They're not actual Catholics, because the first Vatican council actually infallibly condemns modernism as a heresy.

And yet they embrace modernism. That's why they didn't invite any young creationists or any intelligent promoters of intelligent design to a convention they had recently.

All they did was invite evolutionists, because that's what they believe. They don't even believe that there was an

Adam and Eve, or if there was an Adam and Eve, they came from apes. So it's a total apostate religion.

It's not the one true Holy Catholic Church, because if you take a look at what the Holy Catholic Church believed prior to the 1960s, they all believed in a young Earth creation.

That's what they believe. They believe in the biblical young Earth creation event. They never put forth any of this stuff about the

Earth being millions or billions of years old. But that's what the Vatican II accepts, because they are modernists.

That's the modernist interpretation, as they call it. But with regards to the supernovae, yeah, the

Diamond Brothers of the Most Holy Family Monastery. Hey, James, we found something we can agree on. It's just that I apply what you said to the entire

Catholic Church, and you want to limit it just past Vatican II. But go ahead with the supernova. Well, no, it wouldn't be modernism.

The traditional Catholics don't embrace modernism. But with regards to the supernovae, the

Diamond Brothers of the Most Holy Family Monastery, if you go to their YouTube channel, you'll see they have a very good video about this called

Amazing Evidence for God, Scientific Evidence for God. And they present numerous evidences of a young Earth.

And one of them, they show that scientists themselves suggest, they put forth the scientific facts whereby the astronomers look at all these other galaxies, and they see all these supernovae, and they put forth a date on all these galaxies.

And if our galaxy was actually as old as they claim it is, then we should have a huge number of supernovae.

In fact, we should have so many supernovae in our galaxy that the cosmic radiation from the supernovae, you know, the sun's exploding, should affect the

Earth, whereby there shouldn't be any life on the Earth. The radiation wouldn't provide for any life on the Earth. And yet, we don't see that in our own galaxy.

I understand what you're saying now. And that is correct. There are various scientific evidences which are consistent with the biblical age.

So, I'm not over -familiar with that one. I think

I have seen that particular video. It does ring a bell. So, it's on the edge of my consciousness.

But what you said makes sense, that the number of supernovas is a limiting factor.

And therefore, it's saying that the galaxy has to be no more than a certain maximum age.

Another one that we're familiar with is the fact that the galaxies are rotating. And they are of a spiral shape.

Now, I think that it works that, of course, that the forces produced by that should destroy the spiral shape in no more than about a million years.

So, what that's saying, then, is that if that is the case, then the galaxy cannot be more than a million years.

What we're not doing there with any of these evidences, however, is actually proving the biblical position.

The Bible laying down that the Earth is just over 6 ,000 years old. Because to do that, we have to start from Scripture.

And this is where we will part company. Because Scripture has to be our authority at this point. I do accept what you're saying about what you're referring to as traditional

Catholics. Probably, I don't know whether you're one of those who wants to adhere to the

Tridentine Mass and things like that. But certainly, traditional Catholics from before Vatican II would have considerable differences with the

Catholic leadership today. And I understand what you're saying there. But in order to actually evaluate those things, one has to wonder, what is your authority on these things?

Because you said that Catholics from before Vatican II would be young Earth creationists.

On what authority would they be young Earth creationists? As I think I said at the beginning of this particular podcast, the reason why

I don't call myself a young Earth creationist is because my position is not defined in terms of opposition to evolutionists.

My position is defined entirely in terms of what the Bible says about how

God made the universe. Well, that's just to say, when you look at the doctors of the

Church, the Holy Catholic Church prior to the 1960s, they all point to Scripture and say that you must take

Scripture as it is, written. You can't go ahead and say, well, you know, it says this.

But we're going to go ahead and say something different. So they're saying exactly what you're saying. Throughout 2 ,000 years of Catholic history, prior to the 1960s, they're saying you must go by what

Scripture says, and you must go by what Genesis says. You can't go ahead and give some sort of modernist interpretation based on evidences outside of Scripture.

And that's what the Vatican II sect has been doing ever since the 1960s. And I am pleased that you take that position because it's,

I think, God willing, with prayer, it would be the sort of position that would lead you to a completely biblical position.

But, you know, there is an issue of authority here. You talk about what the doctors of the Church said before 1960.

It would not be the case that the doctors of the Church before 1960 would have held to a doctrine of sola scriptura.

They would have had another authority. You would have seen the Church itself as an authority.

That is not the position that we start from and our whole way of life. This is not some sort of particular doctrine that I pick up at this point.

This is something that comes from my belief in sola scriptura, that my doctrine has to come from Scripture alone and has to be founded on Scripture alone.

And that's where we get these positions from. But, you know, there are other people who will, in a sense, have common cause, who would say we can't believe in evolution.

We have to believe that the Earth has been created in a much shorter space of time.

There would be other people who would take that. You know, when I was back in England, I was quite often contacted by Muslims who were creationists who wanted to make common cause.

But as an organization, the minister that I work with then, we would not have been able to work with them.

And there are other religious groups who've contacted me while I've been here in the

Pacific Northwest who I'm not able to work with. And in the same way, there has to be this foundation that God made things, as he said in Scripture, because Scripture is our authority, not some sort of magisterium from the

Church or from the Church doctors. It has to be from Scripture alone. Well, that's where we would depart, because Scripture never says that it is the ultimate authority or that it is the only authority.

In fact, Scripture itself points to the Church. Not the Catholic Church. That didn't exist for several hundred years.

Scripture mentions churches. And that is where, you see, we could go over old ground over and over again.

And what I simply wanted to do there, I don't want to go onto a bunny trail at that point, because we're trying specifically to answer questions on creation.

But I did want to just underline the point, therefore, that while I welcome the fact that you have got these scientific evidences that are of great interest and that are best interpreted in the light of Scripture and make a consistent sense there, there is a point at which we depart because there is this foundation there.

And as you say, you admit that we do depart from each other's position at that point.

And you would not be alone on that. So it is important to have a position on Genesis.

But there is more to things than that. And that is why myself and my brother Andrew would point to the importance of Scripture and to the five solas of the

Reformation bringing us back to a spiritual basis and would not hold to a doctrine where a sort of church with a capital

C, a particular grouping, would be the authority on these matters. You know,

James, a good thing, I suggest you get my book, What Do We Believe?,

and read the chapter on the church. I go through historically how that word has changed over time and what it's come to mean and how it gets used because what you end up seeing is the way you're trying to use it is not the definition that they had at the time of the writing of Scripture.

So they didn't have that idea of church the way you're applying it at that time.

So they didn't have a hierarchy? They didn't have a hierarchy in the church? No, they didn't have that hierarchy and deacons.

So you're telling me they didn't have deacons, priests, and bishops in the early church?

Is that what you just said? This is a great example, Paul, of what we have with James. You can say something and immediately after you say it, he ignores it.

Yeah, well, any argument that starts with the word so is obviously going to be something that I ignore because as you say, you're deliberately taking things out of context.

Andrew's book does go into that and I can recommend that you read that so that you can understand what the Bible has to say on that subject.

Did the apostles have authority over the church? As I said, you could read the chapter in Andrew's book on that subject and that would give you the information that you need.

All right. Thank you. So James is a regular. Folks know that he comes in and this is not uncommon, unfortunately, with him.

He'll tell us what we say when it's not what we say. He'll ignore what we actually say.

He would not be alone and I have to say that there are some people in Bible -believing evangelical churches who would also get the wrong end of the stick and I look out for any argument that begins with, so what you're saying is, because that usually introduces twisting what has been said and deliberately misrepresenting it and I've come across that with many other people from different backgrounds.

So please don't think that that is something that I would use to get at someone from a traditional

Catholic position. It's a common thing. It means that that person is not thinking logically, not thinking in categories, in biblical categories, and certainly not listening to the arguments that are being presented.

That's right. Now, before we go to the next person, just to let folks know as a reminder,

Apologetics Live next week, we'll have Dr. Jason Lyle. We'll be talking creation some more.

There's a whole lot more topics we could talk with him. He is an astrophysicist, so we'll probably be talking about some of the things that have come up recently in the news about some new objects headed our way and things like that that we've seen in the news.

He is a very brilliant man, so make sure you tune in next week. Also wanted to remind you guys, we do have a new

Striving for Eternity YouTube channel. I'm in the process of moving all the videos over there. Made it easier for you to find it by just going to bit .ly

.com slash Y -T -S -F -E. Bit .ly, B -I -T -L -Y dot com.

Basically, the acronym for YouTube Striving for Eternity, Y -T -S -F -E.

That'll get you to the new channel. Subscribe there. Basically, we've always had a problem with YouTube. We started on YouTube way back when.

Before they had business accounts, and now they've kind of moved us to this strange account where we're half business, half not.

It's always been a mess, so we're trying to clean all that up now that we're set up with Google for nonprofits.

So go out to bit .ly .com slash Y -T -S -F -E. If you're watching this on YouTube, well, you're already there.

So go subscribe. If you subscribe, you'll know when we go live every week. So if this is your first time visiting with us, welcome.

I should have said that way back in the preview of the show. We're glad to have folks with us. Paul Taylor is with Mount St.

Helens Creation Center. To go check out his website, it is mschreationcenter .org.

If you ever want to go out and visit Mount St. Helens and get a tour, things like that, it is a great place to go and visit and learn a lot about creation and see what's going on there.

So I have a feeling I may know who this might be next. We have Gerald and Paul.

I have a feeling, if it's who I think, it'll probably be more for me to discuss. Not so much that.

I mean, creation is fine. I just got a question for him. He might be able to help me out.

Let me ask you first. Are you the gentleman that called the ministry at 5

Thursday Sunday morning? Yeah. Thank you for waking me up early.

So the ministry phone in the evening will forward over to my cell phone.

So I was like, my wife is like, who in the world is calling at 530 in the morning?

So my question,

I'm looking here in the book of Genesis number, and it says in the beginning, God created.

So when it says that God created, I can accept that. I understand that. And it says he created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep.

This is where my question comes in. He created darkness before he created the light.

And if everything was dark and he created, what was going on under the cover of darkness before he said that there'll be life?

Is there anything that could possibly be going on? Could there be life and planets and everything being created in the darkness?

Very similar to how life has to begin in the darkness with anything that starts in life.

Let's say you take a seat and you put it in the ground. There's darkness there, and it promotes growth inside of the womb.

There is darkness there, and it promotes growth anywhere. There's a dark place.

You go through a dark time. When you come out of the dark time, you have grown from the experience of being in the dark.

So the possibility of him or the spirit of God that hovered over everything, created everything under the cover of darkness.

And he said that there'd be light. And this could possibly be the Big Bang Theory.

You know, let there be light. And now here comes the light, and it shows everything that was created under the cover of darkness.

Is that possible? It's not what it says. It tells us exactly how

God created things in six literal 24 -hour days in the following verses.

One of the difficulties that we have with language at that point is Moses, under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit, putting this down, needs to be able to use words to describe things before there was a lot created.

Now, I don't really fully understand ever why it is that God didn't create everything instantly.

And of course, Martin Luther came across this problem in his day. There were some of his followers who had really gone a little bit astray who said that the six days of creation were figurative and that what actually happened is

God made things immediately and then revealed them, which is not quite the same as what you said, but it's analogous.

And it's also analogous to people who will say to me that the six days are allegorical of a longer period of time.

But the point is that this doesn't fit with the rest of Scripture, so that when, for example, we're told that there should be one day in seven where we rest, the reason given in Scripture is because God says, in six days

I made the world, and that's what he said about how he made the world. So that's a reason for that.

And it wouldn't make sense, that particular phrase in Exodus 20, verse 11, would not make sense if God hadn't made the world in six literal 24 -hour days.

Now, you say darkness could therefore be when other things were going on.

In any language where you might use the word darkness, that would be a possibility. But what you have here is an incomplete creation, and what you're actually having here is there's darkness over the face of the deep, not in spite of God not yet having created light, but because God has not yet created light.

We, I don't fully understand in my head how you can have a partially created universe, but that is what we had.

God began to do it. He made a universe where the, put the materials in place where things are without form and void, where there's darkness over the face of the deep, where the

Spirit of God is providing the energy there, hovering, but then eventually he makes light and so on.

Could that be a Big Bang Theory? No, it could not be a Big Bang Theory. For the reason I mentioned earlier in the program, that you can count up the approximate date of creation by adding up the various numbers in Genesis, and here we have six 24 -hour days, and therefore you do not have the possibility of having a

Big Bang of millions or billions of years before that. It doesn't fit with that.

You've got to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. So that's why that is not possible at that point, because God is here telling us exactly how he did create the world.

Hold on, one thing to think about, what is darkness, right? Darkness is the absence of light.

So in the context, what's he talking about? He's talking about the fact that God created light.

So darkness is the absence of light, and he hasn't created that light yet. Once he creates the light, the darkness is gone.

So that's the distinction he's making there. Yeah, and I agree with you. I mean,

I understand that, but how is it that things are formed in the darkness, and things are able to live in the darkness, and to strive, and to grow, and to do so many things in the darkness when there is no light available?

Well, hold on. What was growing and living? Because as we look at Genesis 1, it says, in the beginning,

God created the heavens and the earth. But what he's really saying is that today, in darkness, you get things growing, and that's true.

But what we've got here is a sequence of what God made. So it's not up to us to sort of add things to that and say, in this initial darkness in verse 1, that there could have been things growing.

After that, God makes plants on day 3 of creation, and we've got evening, we've got morning.

So there must have been periods of light and darkness at that time. Things could be growing from that point on.

That is true that things do need dark, that seeds need dark to germinate. That is not what's being said in verses 1 and 2 of Genesis.

That darkness is simply there because God has not yet made the light, which he does as his very next act.

Exactly. And so what you're saying is that there has to be light inside the entire universe before you can grow the trees that he talked about in the six days.

I'm not saying what has to be there. I'm simply saying what God did in the order that he did.

You know, some people have said to me, well, Genesis tells us why God made the earth and our scientific ideas of evolution and the

Big Bang tell us how he did it. But that's not the case, because actually, although there are places in the

Bible that tell us why God made the earth, nowhere in Genesis 1 does it say that. It says nothing about why

God made the earth and the universe. So what we have in Genesis 1 is simply a record of what

God did. Yes, yes, yes. I agree with that. I mean, I totally agree with that. Do you, Gerald, do you believe in evolution?

What's that? Do you believe in evolution? No. Okay.

Do you believe that the earth is around 6 ,000 years old? I agree.

Yeah, it has to be at least that old. I mean, I agree that the world is at least 6 ,000 years old and it's got to be older.

Yeah. Do you believe it would be six to 10 ,000 years or do you believe it's millions and billions of years old?

I think it's got to be millions of years old. It's got to be. Why does it got to be? It's got to be, because of the things that are here, the evidence that we have here.

Okay, let's take a look at the Grand Canyon. I mean, okay, really.

I mean, okay, let's look at something very simple. I mean, I don't want to involve anything complicated. Yeah, no.

No, the reason I laughed is because— The Grand Canyon is actually very simple. The Grand Canyon is actually very simple.

Yeah, that's why we're looking at St. Helens. The Grand Canyon could not have been carved by the Colorado River because if it had, there would have been a delta where the material would have gone.

The Grand Canyon wasn't carved by the river at all. The Grand Canyon was carved by floodwater draining off the

North American continent as the North American continent was lifted up at the end of the flood. And it happened very, very fast indeed in a matter of days.

And the Colorado River would have gone through afterwards. So you're saying that that is possible to be done within 5 ,000 or 6 ,000 years?

Absolutely. The carving of what we have there? No, no, no. Remember, that happened very quickly.

Even Discover, if you watch Discovery Channel, they had a program about the Grand Canyon. And it was hysterical because what they said was they had all the evidence to prove that the canyon was carved quickly from a flood.

And they were like, but it wasn't a global flood. Well, that's their bias. Yeah. When you look at the sedimentary layers that you had that moved in when it was carved out, the only way to explain that is a very large rush of water coming in, not a little bit of water over a long period of time.

You had to have a lot of water over a little bit of time. Even the secularists recognize that now.

They just want to deny that it was a global flood. But I have to say that, okay, this water has to start somewhere.

And if it carved out the Grand Canyon, it would have carved everything out that was in line with the water.

I mean, it would have taken out a couple of states. I mean, if you have this much water that can do that much damage that fast, the

Grand Canyon won't be the only thing that it destroyed. We did have a lot of water because there was water covering the whole earth at the time.

But again, on the subject of being millions of years, we've got, for example, the witness of Jesus himself.

Jesus is asked about marriage and his answer on that subject in Matthew 19, verse 4 is, have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?

Now the phrase from the beginning, he's talking about Adam and Eve there from the male and female being from the beginning.

Because he then goes on to quote about Adam and Eve. He says, therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife.

The two shall become one flesh. So what Jesus is talking about, he's saying is at the beginning, from the beginning.

And the word used there, arche, is the same word in the same context that's used at the beginning of John's gospel.

When we say in the beginning was the word, which I think almost every theologian would accept as referring to the beginning of creation, not the beginning of humankind, but the beginning of creation.

Jesus is therefore saying that Adam and Eve were from the beginning of creation, not after a period of millions of years when they suddenly appear.

They were right there at the beginning of creation. Of course, the sixth day of creation, as we read in the detail in Genesis 1.

So the concept of the earth not being millions of years old is basically what we're learning there from what

Jesus taught. What Jesus said is not compatible with being millions of years, but is compatible with the biblical time scale of just over a thousand years.

Hey, Paul, we have about six minutes left. So let me ask you this with the Grand Canyon, Mount St.

Helens, eruption in about three hours. There is a canyon that was carved. Maybe you could talk about that because it's not as large as the

Grand Canyon, but we know exactly because we have footage. We know exactly how long it took to carve that canyon.

We often call it the Little Grand Canyon, and it was carved out in a minor eruption by a large mud flow produced on the 19th of March, 1982.

And that whole canyon system was formed in the space of nine hours. Now, although we call it the

Little Grand Canyon, it is actually pretty substantial. It's a mistake in a way, because the

Grand Canyon is so awesome, so inspiring. The Grand Canyon is 40 times bigger than the

Little Grand Canyon. So therefore, the Little Grand Canyon is pretty big. It's 200 feet deep in places. So you see, at the same sort of scale, the

Grand Canyon would have been formed in about seven or eight days, not in millions of years.

Because as I said, the Little Grand Canyon near Mount St. Helens was carved out in nine hours.

And of course, we have no doubt about that because, you know, it was seen to happen. Yes, so I know we're coming up to the end of the show.

So, Gerald, you're always welcome to come back. Oh, yeah, I'll be back. I'm just here for now. Not welcome to call me at 5 .30

in the morning. No, no. I've been having to see your video that says something about Israelites and our abilities to be able to think for ourselves.

Whoa. Whoa. I'm not sure I wasn't sure that is.

But yeah, I mean, I'm sure you and I'll have a and maybe we could set a full two hour show aside and you and I can talk about who are the

Israelites and all. Because I will argue that I'm an Israelite because I can follow my genealogy back to Levi.

That means that you're not lost. Yeah. You're not part of lost tribes if you can find your way back through it.

Yeah. And so we can have that discussion. But we're just going to we're coming up at the end of the show.

That's cool. So but you're welcome. Thank you for the knowledge. And it gives me something to kind of go back and study and all that good stuff.

And I really want to show up because I heard that most of the Israelites don't. So I want to be that one to say, hey, look, we showed up.

Don't show an empty chair on us anymore. No, it's OK. The video you're referring to, the video you're referring to,

I'll tell you, for Paul's sake and others who are listening, I have been challenged in New York and online by many

Hebrew Israelites that they used to go by the name Black Hebrew Israelites that don't like that anymore.

So but basically, the argument was would be that the

African slave trade was what brought the Israelites over to America and that they were the

Israelites. So with that, I had all these guys always debate for a year and a half, challenging me to debates and challenging me.

And so we had three guys. It was going to be three against one. And they were going to debate me.

And we had it set up and they blocked me on social media and we couldn't send them the link to join.

So the moderator was like, what are we going to do? I said, let's have the debate. He's like, what do you mean? There's no one to debate.

I said, let's do it. And so basically, what I did was I was just going to shame them for doing what they did.

And and I just that's right. That's right. I was introduced. I told the moderators to just introduce me and let them let them introduce themselves.

And he's like, what are you going to do? So sure enough, when it came time to introduce them, I put up a picture of an empty chair. It did get

Zadok to come out and we did an actual formal debate, he and I. So that actually is is there on the on the or the old

YouTube channel. I'm going to move that over. I'll try to move that over tonight so that folks can go to the new YouTube channel.

This is just a bit of knowledge for me that I'm still trying to figure out. And this is about the whole

Christian thing, because the guy that you're debating, they believe in Christ.

I mean, I'm an Israelite and I don't believe in Christ. So and the reason I don't is and I'm gonna hang my hat on this.

This guy is a Jew. But yet, in order to believe in him,

I have to drink blood and I have to eat. Now, to Jews.

No, no, it's not right there. Drinking blood is a no, no. Yeah. And no one drinks blood.

They drink. They drink. What do we drink? Wine. It represents what?

Well, the representation doesn't make it that. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

We cannot have ceremony doing all types of stuff and say that on film. Yeah, but no, it's not. It doesn't change the ceremony.

The fact is, it doesn't change the material nature of what something is. We'll have to pick this up.

That you can kind of take what you're trying to get you an answer together on. This dude got us.

He has us drinking his blood. No, he doesn't. He's prohibited by the whole time. No. Yeah, we don't drink blood.

What is drink is, well, back then it would have been wine and what we drink today in churches would be grape juice.

But he said, this is my blood drinking. He also said he's a dwarf. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's a dwarf.

So. And then he said that my God committed a human sacrifice.

We're going to pick this up another time. Thank you, man.

I appreciate you, Doc. I'm going to your website. I'm going to look this stuff up because I want to know about creation myself.

I am. I am very ignorant of it and I'm searching knowledge and I appreciate it. If you if you go to strivingforeternity .org,

a good book for you to pick up is going to be Dr. Sylvester's book on the origin of kinds.

So at strivingforeternity .org, there's a store there and get the book on the origin of kinds.

That would be a great book to have. It also will give you some of the arguments for a young earth in and give you an argument from a presuppositional view that we were talking about earlier on the show.

So so. OK. All right. I'm going to put you I'm going to put you in the backstage while we while we close out.

Go ahead, man. You guys have a great day. I just want to come in and show my face and get a feel for it.

And I like it. Good. All right. Thank you. So, Paul, thank you so much for coming on.

I knew it was going to be fun. Even I hope folks can understand you without translation. That's a joke that Paul and I have had for a long time.

The humorous part of it. Paul got me back. We were doing a conference together and the whole time

I kept asking if people needed translation in the Midwest where they call it water, not water.

And I turned to the moderators. We're getting ready for Q &A. And I'm like, hey, you know,

Michael, can can we get some waters up here? And he goes, what? And I mean, I've never seen

Paul move so quick as he grabs he grabs the microphone and says he would like some water.

Everybody was laughing. I totally deserved it. It was good.

So, folks, go check out mschreationcenter .org

to find all about what Paul is doing. If you happen to get out to Mount St. Helens, it would be great to stop in there and pay a visit to the center.

I've been there myself. It's there's a lot to see. Paul, anything you want to share before we close out?

No, we've covered a lot of ground today. We didn't mention about the spiritual battle going on in Britain over Britain trying to get away from the evil satanic organization known as the

European Union. But, you know, maybe that's for another time. But, yeah, no, we've covered a lot of ground today.

Yeah, well, I appreciate you coming on. And, you know, it's always a blessing to be with you.

And I like what Donnie Jack says here. I need to read Paul's books with his accent in my head.

That would do well in reading the books that way. Yeah, there is always this rumor, isn't there, that if you talk with a

British accent, you're supposed to be more intelligent. But, you know, that applies to Richard Dawkins, too, doesn't it?

Yeah, well, here's the thing. I agree. Listen, there's one thing I would say. You and Richard Dawkins properly explain that word, not creation.

What's that word that Dawkins uses that he believes in? Evolution. Yes, that's right.

In England, we would pronounce it evolution. Evil. That is the proper pronunciation for evolution.

I've been in the United States so long, I actually couldn't. I didn't remember that. The first thing

I just thought of the word evolution straight away. It just shows I'm becoming Americanized, drinking coffee instead of tea.

And you might even start persuading me that if you play a game where you run around with your hands around an egg -shaped object, that that's called football.

But I can't see that yet. That's OK. I don't watch either one.

So, folks, make sure to tune in next week. We'll have Dr. Jason Lyle here. Remember, you can always go to apologeticslive .com

every Thursday night. The details to watch and to join are always going to be there.

And so that's something to just remember. We appreciate all of those who come in and watch.

Make sure you go back. This will be a podcast on the Christian Podcast Community. So go search for Apologetics Live as a podcast on whatever podcast catcher you have.

You can catch this whole thing if you're like me and you like to listen to things quicker. I actually listen to Paul's.

OK, Paul, because of the accent, I slow him down to two and a half speed. Most Americans are just at three speed.

But yeah, so Marcy puts in there. Thank you, Andrew and Paul. God bless you both. This was my first time listening.

I look forward to visiting again soon. So we're glad to have you here. So this has been a ministry of Striving for Eternity.

That's who hosts this. I do want to mention if you want to support us to help us be able to do this more and other things, you can support us at strivingforeternity .org

slash donate. That would help us out tremendously. We would appreciate that.

So until next week, remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.