Creation Science and NAR with Dr Anthony Silvestro | Apologetics Live 0029

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the Christian Podcast Community.

Introduction to Creation Science and the New Apostolic Reformation

All right, this is Apologetics Live, and we are live. Glad to have you all here with us. We are here another week, but we do not have the Slick one, which means we're going to have a lot more fun. No, we have a doctor in the house, quite literally, a doctor, well, specifically a dentist.

Yeah, I'm not a real doctor. Yeah, people say you're not a real doctor. This is Dr. Anthony Silvestro from Striving for Eternity, and we're going to have some fun talking two main topics tonight, which we're probably going to get into some others.

We're planning to talk about creation science, which happens to be his expertise, and the main thing he ends up speaking about for Striving for Eternity. But we're also going to talk about something else, which is kind of his favorite love, I think.

Would it be fair to say you have a love-hate relationship with the New Apostolic Reformation?

Yeah, the NAR and Catholics, for whatever reason, are just always on my radar, always. Everyone around here is either one of them.

So Matt Slick is trying to pack up his house for folks who have been following along with us. Matt is trying to pack up and he's getting, I believe it's this week, the carpets come in, the paint goes up, and he's trying to get everything out of the house to be able to do that.

They're still trying to figure out how to get to move. They're trying to get, for folks who have been following, you know that his wife is basically not very mobile, and so they needed to get an RV to travel down to Arizona.

They have to get that first. They also have to, and they're kind of borrowing someone else's, is what they're looking to do because they can't afford to rent one, but they're looking to do that, and they found out something interesting with their health insurance.

They discovered that if they move right now, the health insurance that they've already paid the deductible in full starts all over, and they get to pay the deductible all over again. Yeah, they get a really high deductible, and that's going to be hard, so they're trying to figure out when would be the right time to move.

This move may get put off a little bit. They're trying to figure this out. There is someone in the chat named Paul Mars. Paul, make sure you go to, and for anyone else, go to apologeticslive .com, and there is a link to join us from there.

There's a reason I'm asking Paul to join us because we're going to be talking about a topic, the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR for short, and he had some questions on that, and so we're going to talk about that.

Actually, I was kind of amazed, Anthony, that in the Apologetics Live Facebook group, I asked folks what it is they wanted to talk about tonight, had some, you know, basically just trying to get some topics, and New Apostolic Reformation came in.

A lot of people wanted to talk about that. We did have one that maybe it's up your alley. You know, Steve Ludwith really wanted to talk about Bigfoot and Nephilim and Flying Demon Babies. Now, I guess that's based out of Genesis 6 with the whole thing of Nephilim, so I guess maybe he wants you to answer.

I wouldn't feel right doing that show without Frank on. I mean, that's Frank's term, so.

Well, okay, the Flying Demon Babies is Frank. That's right. That's Frank. Frank Mullis is who we're speaking of, but I guess he dropped a picture in there, and I guess Matt had some video that he did called Bigfoot and Nephilim, Total Depravity and Covenant Theology.

So I guess those were the topics that came up on his radio show at one of the times, and I guess Matt was saying that maybe the Bigfoot or Nephilim, I don't know. I essentially said that neither one of us are capable of answering anything about Bigfoot or Flying Demon Babies because neither one of us believe that they exist.

So let me start. I want to ask you some questions first about creation science, and then we'll move over into discussing NAR because that's probably going to be a longer talk. For the folks who are in the room, if you have questions, just give a shout in the side chat there to let me know that you have a question so that we can add you in.

But Anthony, real quick for folks, there's lots of debate on the issue of evolution, the issue of creation science. On my Wrap Report podcast, every once in a while, I try to go over different issues of logic.

I gave one recently called confirmation bias. You're familiar with that, I believe, right? Okay. I gave the example of how it's used with evolution. Could you explain? Well, I'll explain confirmation bias, and then I'll ask you to give how we see this work out when we talk to people about evolution.

Confirmation bias is basically the idea when you only accept evidence or supporting arguments that support a conclusion that you already hold to. In other words, you hold to a conclusion, and if evidence comes in that supports that conclusion, you accept it.

If it doesn't accept the conclusion, you reject the evidence. That's called confirmation bias. You have a bias towards something you already confirm. Anthony, how do we see this play out when it comes to evolution?

Oh, easy. You talk to an evolutionist, and they will say all science points to evolution, and then they start ratting off certain things. The reality is that there's lots of good science out there. They ignore most of it.

If any science that we bring up says, wait a minute, this is where evolution has problems, where evolution can happen, that's what they reject. They usually fall into other logical fallacies, such as pointing to people like me not being real doctors and have no authority to speak on a subject.

They will also point to the myriad of scientists, what they would call the myriad of scientists out there. I admit, do the majority of scientists buy into evolution? Seemingly so. I will also say, though, that there's many more scientists that are secular.

They hate God, but they still realize the big, big problems with evolution. It's interesting. What's actually out there is not what's being taught in secular schools. That's where you see this confirmation bias coming out.

It's really with the science and what they reject.

All right. We do this throughout the show is whenever we get anyone to give us a super chat. By the way, if you want to give a super chat, on the bottom, if you're on YouTube, there's a little dollar sign.

Just click that, and you can donate. The money goes to karm .org. Jason Manning gave $2 and said, God bless. Anyone that does that, we give shout outs, too. That's how you give a super chat. John isn't chatting away in there.

He doesn't want to come in here. His thing that he wanted to talk about was, I got to look it up now, something about being addicted. He wants to talk about Bible coveting, a serious issue amongst striving for eternity leadership.

Anthony, do you covet other people's Bibles?

I saw that, and I responded to John, actually. I saw that.

John, I got this very nice goatskin ESV.

I'm not coveting yours. John, it's like if there's a piece of food on somebody's plate that you really want, you lick it real quick, and then they won't eat it. You just do that to Andrew's Bible, and he'll give it to you.

I got another one right here that someone bought for me, another goatskin. I don't need your goatskin. I don't need a red one, John. John got a red goatskin Bible, and I just like taking it from him. Real quick, get back to creation science.

With creation science

I'm looking for some Bibles I can pull out. Too much work. Too much work.

Okay. The argument people will make is, well, there's several arguments. One, people will make the argument that anything that creation scientists do hasn't been done through peer review or double blind studies.

Is that true, and how much does that actually matter?

Here's another issue of confirmation bias. They will make the claim that we don't have peer-reviewed science journals, and then we say, look at all these journals that are peer-reviewed. Look at all these articles that are peer-reviewed, some of which are peer-reviewed in secular journals, and they reject it.

They won't read any of the journals. So ICR, creation .com, AIG, they all put out journals, good, heavy research technical journals done with actual PhD scientists, and these things don't get looked at.

So we have plenty of peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed articles in those journals. Again, they reject everything systematically. If it doesn't fit with their worldview, it's gone. They don't think about it.

And that's sort of what Ben Stein was trying to get across in that movie he did, Expelled. And what do they do with that? They're like, oh, well, that isn't serious. If it doesn't start with the conclusion they want, they just reject it and say, well, that doesn't count.

So here's what's crazy, though. If you go into certain secular scientific journals, you can find articles and research where they show people, guys that do the research together, speaking among themselves within the article, talking about how they can't see how things like evolution works.

There's plenty of journal articles. They know that their, I don't even want to call it theory. It's not a theory, but their hypothesis is broken. And they know that they don't have a mechanism in terms of the mutation issue.

It's the one thing I exploit in the book. It's the one thing that, as you've heard me teach multiple times, the thing about mutations is that's the linchpin for evolution, and they know they don't have it.

Same thing goes for the Big Bang Theory. The reason why, people probably don't know this, but the reason why the Higgs boson particle was so, so, so important for them to find a few years ago and why they had all kinds of excitement for what they thought was a Higgs boson particle is because in the Big Bang dilemma, it brings up something called a horizon problem.

So maybe I'll explain that here for a moment. I just heard this on Easter Sunday as I was witnessing to my father-in-law and brother-in-law. So Julie was gracious enough to walk away and take the rest of the family with her, and it left me with them for several hours.

We had some interesting talk. So the brother-in-law, who thought he's been really smart, says, hey, have you ever looked in a telescope before? I go, well, of course.

He goes, well, don't you think.

That we can see billions of light years away? And I said, oh, uh-oh. We got a break for this.

Are we seeing a Bible? Yeah, we're seeing it, but I didn't show him. He wants to show. Here, we'll put him on camera. Yeah, let him show off. Now he's not putting his camera on. What are you talking about?

But he needs to get faster internet so people can actually see something. But he's showing a red Schuyler Bible. Yeah, it's pretty. Yes. And he thinks I'm coveting that Bible, but the reality is we paid for that Bible.

I could have bought two. As he rubs it. You think he was just licking that Bible. Yeah, so nobody takes it from him. That's how it works. Okay, so let me let folks in on the background here. Okay, John won this Bible at a contest that we were having.

And so he wins the Bible. He brings it to a conference that we were at out of Washington, and he brought it. I took his Bible and hid it on him so he couldn't find his Bible. And so ever since then.

Can I say that you actually put me in a chokehold?

Well, hey, it worked. It did.

I sacrificed my Bible for you. Yeah. It's one of the best Bibles I've ever owned. Thank you so much. Well, thanks. I love it. And it still smells good, too. It still smells good.

All right. You got to work on your Internet there because it's kind of choppy. You may have to. I'm getting dizzy looking at it. Yeah. All right. So now, first off, you were mentioning the particle, and I don't even know how many folks.

I mean, people who study this will know, you know, the importance. I know. So back up one second. First, explain the particle and what's going on over at CERN, what they're trying to do, and then let's get into the horizon problem.

So, well, basically, it's a tiny, tiny, tiny particle. Now, let's talk about the horizon problem first, and then we'll backtrack to this, and it'll make sense here. So this is the horizon problem. When my brother-in-law questioned me and asked me, well, you look through a telescope, right?

Don't you think we're seeing 6 billion light years? And it's because of the thought that if something is 6 billion light years away, that it takes 6 billion years for that light to travel before it enters the telescope to enter our eye and we see it.

And so, therefore, the universe must be billions of years old. And I said, well, you know, here's the problem, is that we don't actually know what the speed of light is. Sounds crazy, right? Except that any time you read in a textbook the speed of light, it's the average speed of light.

It's not the speed of light. We don't actually know the one-way, the one-directional way speed of light. And, you know, Jason Lyle has some good research on this or good thoughts, I should say, behind this and some of the math behind it.

And he's got several ideas as to how light would travel faster than what we think to be the speed of light today. In one direction. In one direction, right?

It's one of the average ways. Yeah, when you said the average, it's really when we measure light, we can only measure a round trip. We can measure a light beam hitting a mirror and returning. And returning, yeah.

Photons, boom, and back. And we can measure that time.

We know the distance. There we have an average speed of light. Yeah, we don't know. And we suspect it could be faster one way. Some guys think it could actually be instantaneous one way. And then you see the lag on the way back.

So who knows? Who knows what the answer is? But the thing is that we as creationists get pointed at by the secularists who say that we've got the issue because we believe if the Earth's only 6 ,000 years old, then the light must travel faster than the speed of light.

Ha, ha, ha, jokes on you type of deal. And we say, well, wait a minute. You've got a problem too because within the Big Bang Theory, you also have to assume that the speed of light is a whole lot faster than what we have as the average speed of light today.

And this is what I mean. So if we took a cup of coffee that was piping hot and you put a couple ice cubes in the top, now let's assume that it was enough ice cubes that when they melted and mixed together with the coffee, it would bring it down to an average temperature that you could drink it and not scald yourself.

Okay, that's our assumption. Now let's say you drop those two ice cubes in and the moment the last ice cube melts, you drink it, what happens? You're going to burn yourself still. And the reason why is because there's not enough time that has passed to allow the heat transfer in that cup of coffee.

You'll end up having colder coffee on top, hotter coffee in the bottom. The way that we get around this problem is we stir it up, right? And so that's how you mix it together and it's good. Well, the horizon problem says this.

When they've tested different areas of the universe, obviously not right next to a star. We're talking in the vast amounts of space because most of the universe is space. As we test different areas of space, we found that the temperature is very, very uniform.

We're talking 10 to the negative fifth Kelvin. So a fraction of a degree. The problem is for the secularists is that not enough light from stars has transferred back and forth across the universe to make what should have been hot and cold spots a uniform temperature.

Because according to the Big Bang, for stars to have formed, we've got hot spots, for planets to cool down, for the vast amount of space to be really cold, you would have had right from the get-go of the Big Bang, these hot and cold spots having to appear.

Those hot and cold spots, there is not enough time in their Big Bang model of 13 to 14 billion years. There's not been enough time for light to transfer, which is heat, for it to transfer enough to be able to make the uniform temperature that we see in the universe today.

That's the issue. And so secularists know this problem called the horizon problem. For us as creationists, when I do training on creation, I don't worry about the three different theories that Jason Lyle has, the two different theories that Danny Faulkner has, the other half a dozen theories that are out there as to how light can travel faster than the speed of light.

All I say is, look, you seculars have the exact same problem we do in the horizon problem. Now, the Higgs boson particle, they theorize that if you had enough of these Higgs boson particles right from the get-go, it would have accounted for a lot more mass, and they could have accounted for hot and cold spots that would have dissipated a lot faster, I guess is the easiest way to say it.

So it's just a way that they could have tried to tweak their model. And that's really about it. And I think we're seeing a bunch of stuff coming up now. I actually have some questions from Vincent, who I haven't talked to in quite some time.

All right, well, let's bring him in. I thought you were talking about the other chat, but Vincent, and I brought you in. Well, I don't know if there's another chat. I only see the one here on the screen.

Yeah, there's one on YouTube.

Oh, I'm not that fancy. Well, really more comments towards some of this. It's an interesting topic, for sure. Can you all hear me, by the way? Yep. All right. I never know. Just the whole subject of the speed of light and how it's measured, and I really encourage you all to look at some of the earlier experiments that really led Einstein to come up with this theory of relativity.

It's called the Michelson-Morley experiments, where they were trying to measure the speed of light, and it led to some very interesting results. And it's what really propelled Einstein to come up with a theory of relativity, because they couldn't even come close to quantifying the speed of light to what they thought it would be.

And so they had to use all these mathematical equations to try and normalize it. It's an interesting topic, if you look into it really further. The Michelson-Morley experiments, they've done them multiple times, and the results were always not what the scientific community expected.

So it's an interesting topic. And like other things that they don't expect, they don't talk about either. No, I mean, really, the whole reason for the relativity theory and transforms is because in order to maintain the status quo in the scientific community, all it is is to keep what they already think, perceive to be the truth,.

To maintain it as their truth. Well, that's the confirmation bias again. I mean, it really is, right? Because if their argument is that this is what all scientists believe, and all of a sudden we see that there's some good science on the other side, that presents a problem.

So I don't know if anyone here has watched this video, but there's a video out there. I could probably find it and put up a link at some point here. But there's a video of a guy who seemed very sincere.

He's a secular... I think he was an anthropologist. But he was going back and finding bones of what he believed to be one of the intermediate species between... Bigfoot? We're back on Bigfoot? I like Bigfoot, yeah.

Flying demon babies. So actually, flying demon babies, I think, are a mix between pterodactyls and humans. That's what it is. We'll have to tell Frank that. Now you got me forgetting what I was talking about.

What? Like we were paying attention? Probably not. Oh, that's great. Okay. Vincent, do you remember what he was saying? We'll see if anyone was actually paying attention. He was finding bones or something?

I don't know. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

So in this... It's been a long day for me. So in his drawers, he pulls out a drawer of hips, the pelvis. And he's talking about how he knows this to be the pelvis of an intermediate species between us and a chimpanzee.

And he said, but this looks way too ape-like. So as he studied the pelvis, he saw some areas that he thought that, you know... Well, okay. Let's just say this. He made an assumption that the hips somehow got crushed.

So this whatever ape died, bones laying there, it gets crushed right before it gets fossilized. And then during the fossilization process, it reattached itself, refused. And the problem is that this set of bone that they knew to be an intermediate species but looked way too ape-like, he knew that this bone, this pelvis must have refused to make it look more ape-like.

Then we watch him for the next 5 to 10 minutes taking a Dremel and start Dremeling the hips and then gluing the pieces back together into what he believes to be the intermediate. And I know you've seen this, Andreas.

You're shaking your head. There's... If you haven't all seen this, I'll find the link. I'll put it up. You got to watch this. But it is the ultimate in confirmation bias. I saw that on... I think it was Discovery.

Yeah, Discovery or PBS. And so this is what... And it was amazing when I watched it because I'm just like, wait a minute. How do you know...

They're taking a pelvis that doesn't have any breaks in it, assuming it must have been this, cracking it like, oh, let's just carve this part out, this part out. And now, oh, look. Now it looks like the missing link.

I think Todd Friel did the same thing. I think he showed us the same video on Wretched once.

Oh, when you said he did the same thing, I thought you meant that he actually took a bone and... That's not true. So, yeah. I mean, this is the thing I think it's so interesting when we get all these challenges for creation because there's so much of the evidence that they ignore because they just can't deal with it.

So let's go on to the... One of the questions that we did get that someone wanted asked here in the Facebook group. Since we were mentioning Frank Mullis earlier, Eric Mancini had asked the question. I just got it.

You see, you're laughing because you know Eric Mancini's. And so he was asking about the Loch Ness Monster and which one eats more fish. He said, Loch Ness Monster or Frank Mullis, who eats more fish?

Anthony, what say you? Actually, I said Frank ate the Loch Ness Monster. He said it was a duck. It was a fish.

Oh, that's great. Basically, Frank likes to eat a lot of sushi. A lot of fish. And duck. And duck. He does like duck, yes. So, I don't know. I see that Cody came in here. I don't know if Cody has any questions about creation.

Hey, so I was flipping through while you're doing that. I was flipping through the comments as to topics people want to talk about. They wanted to ask if we... One of them was, do we believe in global warming?

Yes. And I actually, believe it or not, I believe it conditionally. So, what happens is, if you're in Northern Hemisphere in April, May time, we see the temperatures rising. We get some pretty nice global warming.

And then it turns into global cooling when September and October rolls around. Well, actually...

All together, it's climate change. Well, I answered that I do. I mean, I do believe in global warming and global cooling. I think it's a cycle. But here's the thing that when we come to the issue... And by the way, folks, if you notice, it used to be global warming.

And now you're not allowed to use that term. And it was climate change. Now you're not allowed to use that term. And it's extreme weather. When I was growing up, we were going into another ice age. The reason being is, you have a cyclical cycle where it warms and it cools.

Now, the irony is, when we're going into an ice age, the solution that they had was government control. When we went into global warming, the solution was government control. The government can't control either one of these extremes.

What they do is, they say, okay, let's look at... Let's do some research and studies on global warming and what the causes are. So we know that there's things of solar flares. Basically, flares that come off of the sun and come toward the Earth.

And even... It's amazing because when these flares come, they blow out our satellites. But they go, nope, we're going to take that out. That doesn't affect anything. So they remove solar flares. The Earth actually will change its magnetic force.

Their magnetic field changes. Nope, we can't look at that. There's these solar storms. Nope, we can't look at that. Volcanoes. We can't look at that. Essentially, what they do is remove everything except human beings and then say, man is creating global warming.

You know, there's research out there. Now, so, okay. Does a greenhouse effect... Could it potentially exist with carbon dioxide? Potentially, it could. The issue I have, I don't think that actually happens.

I believe what you think, Andrew, is that cycles within not only the Earth, but the sun, rotation of the planets in the solar system, how we rotate in the Milky Way galaxy. I think there's a whole host of issues that can play a role in terms of very minor fluctuations in temperatures.

The biggest thing of the research that they've hidden that bugs me is when you look at the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that's put up into the atmosphere, do you know what the largest amount of it is from?

We're talking like more than 99 .9 of all carbon dioxide emissions. Cows, right? Isn't it? No, it's volcanoes and earthquakes, especially ones that are in the oceans.

Wait, no. They're coughing them up. Al Gore told us it was cow fluctuation. I know. When cows pass gas. Come on.

He was the same guy that talked about preserving energy and then we found out he had a $10 ,000 a month electric bill with all the lights on his mansion. Well, he told us that the Earth was going to be gone, what, like, was it seven years ago now that we were supposed to be extinct?

He should join the Jehovah's Witnesses.

When you look at it, there is, I mean, there was some studies that were done to show that one volcano does more damage to the ozone layer than two atomic bombs dropped in Japan. I mean, if we tried to destroy the environment, I don't think we could.

The natural processes of just volcanoes do more damage, supposedly, if you can call it damage, but do more damage than us dropping atomic bombs. Not saying we should be, I mean, one of the things that both you and I hold to is that we are, as Christians, we do believe God gave us stewardship over the Earth and we should care for it.

We shouldn't be trying to do things that would damage the atmosphere and things like that. But the thinking that we could actually do something that could destroy this planet, when you look at what the planet's doing to itself, because that's part of the curse, this is part of what we see is the result of the fall.

You see this in Romans 8. The entire universe is groaning. Yeah, Romans 8 .22. Yeah, because of the fall, because of what happened with Adam and Eve, there was a curse that affected the whole universe.

The entire universe is groaning. That's what we see. And if the Earth hasn't destroyed itself now with all the volcano activity that it's had, we're not going to do much. Not saying we shouldn't try to take care of it, but we have a responsibility.

Yeah. A responsibility to a point, right? I mean, you're not going to affect a human life.

Based off of trying to care for the environment. I mean, we have to be aware of the fact that there is a political agenda behind it as well. I mean, there is an agenda behind all these things that have been attempting to create a, you know, basically to take open markets and close them and create more of a socialistic mindset.

They've been trying a lot of different things to do that. And global warming didn't work like they hoped. But LGTBQ has. I mean, that's really been helping in creating a worldwide socialistic thinking.

But yeah, I think it's just government control. That's all they want.

Equip Ohio and Evangelism Outreach

Oh, absolutely. The, uh... Well, so as we're talking about the LGBTQ movement, this might be a good time to bring up Equip Ohio, right? So, and actually, Andrew, do you want to talk about that for a moment?

I've got to go watch Anthony.

Run home from the neighborhood real quick. All right, sure. Get me on the spot. So, Equip Ohio is going to be June 1st in Cleveland, Ohio at Olmsted Falls Baptist Church, if you're... It's where we've held the previous ones.

And June 1st, the doors are going to open 8 o 'clock, 8 a .m. This one is going to be different than we've done the past ones because this is going to be more of a mini conference. So it's going to run until just before noon.

And then around noon to 6 o 'clock, we're going to set more time aside for the evangelism. And the reason that Anthony was saying to the LGTBQ is because there will be a Gay Pride Festival. And that's one of the reasons that we're going to try to go a little bit earlier is to be able to go and do some outreach there while there's a lot of people at the parade.

We don't go into the parade. Don't need to. The speakers for this, though, are going to be Dr. Anthony Silvestro, Michael Coghlan, and Pastor Austin Hessler. If you've been to our other Ohio conferences, you should know those names.

And so, June 1st, doors open 8 o 'clock at Olmsted Falls Baptist Church. If you want to get more information about that, just email info at strivingforeternity .org info at strivingforeternity .org. And so that would be a good place to go.

Get trained up if you want to get trained to do some evangelism. Now, I'm just trying to look at some of the comments that we had from our Facebook group because there was another one I wanted to address.

I'm going to have to look. But if folks want to join in here, ask any questions, give any challenges, go to apologexlive .com. There is a link there to join. And I'm going to add in, let's see, who was first?

I think Chris was first. Okay, so Chris, I added you if you want to unmute yourself. And I don't know if you have any questions for us tonight. Not in specific. Well, I did have a question.

For Dr. Silvestro. I'm pretty sure I know where he is because he talked about the earth being 6 ,000 years old. And I was just wondering if that's something that we should affirm as far as young earth creation is concerned and if that's what Genesis 1 and 2 intend to teach.

Well, I will answer for Dr. Anthony Silvestro because I will give a better answer than he could. And the best part is now that he's back, he doesn't know the question. He just gets to hear the answer.

Flying demon babies. You know, at some point, we're going to have to explain this flying demon babies of Frank's. Frank's got to get on for that. Yeah, Frank, I'll have to get on. All right. The question was, Anthony, must we, well, should we affirm a young earth creation?

Now, I think you and I may have a little bit of a different view. I would say we should, but not must. I'm a little bit, I'm not as hard line, I would say maybe as Anthony. I think that there are folks who may think that Scripture allows for an older earth and they have reasons from Scripture, but I don't think it's, I just don't think they're very good arguments.

However, I don't say that we shouldn't call them brothers. I don't think that they're somehow giving up the Bible. What say you, Anthony? Heretics.

No, you know, in all seriousness, the issue that I have is when we look at the Bible, the only reason why you get millions to billions of years is from secular textbooks. You don't read the Bible and come up with millions to billions of years.

It is strictly something that is taken from secular science and people do their best to import it into the Bible. That's an issue I have. It's very different than many other conversations. You know, Andrew, you and Matt differ in theology in a number of areas.

You guys can have good talks about that, debates that people enjoy, respectful debates, and you guys can both walk away thinking either you're right, the other one's wrong. No, I'm always right. Yeah.

But you respect each other because you guys know that both of you start with scripture. You know that that's your starting point. And the starting point of somebody who looks at an old earth is not scripture.

When we listen to the arguments of Hugh Ross and some of these other guys who are professing Christians, they are proponents of evolution and old age. They never have scriptural arguments that are sound.

And they have no places where they can stick the millions and billions of years other than actually.

Just sticking it in somewhere. Well, I think, you know, there are some who, and you would be familiar with, you know, the whole idea that Genesis 1 -2 is more of a polemical type of argument. They're going to approach it from scripture, but the folks that hold to that also don't always take a position on whether it's old or young earth.

They can go either way. They don't make a deal of that. So there are some folks who try to make an argument from scripture, not just from science, that allows for it. Now, I'm going to play the advocate here.