Science, Evolution, and Presuppositions: What You Need to Know – With Dr. Jason Lisle

Hey, welcome back to revealed apologetics.

I'm your host Eli Ayala and today as I always say at the beginning of every video I'm excited

to welcome back.

Dr. Jason Lyle, who is a Returning guest he's been on the channel quite a bit as a matter of

fact just to highlight this if you guys Just heard about dr. Lyle or you know about him and you really have

been benefiting from his material.

The most watched video on my channel is a moderated discussion that dr. Lyle had with dr Hugh

Ross and so I highly recommend folks check that out.

This is kind of the Introduction to this episode, but I'm gonna let you know now that if you're interested in watching that

specific interaction I'm gonna have a link posted in the description to this video.

So definitely check that out if you've never heard of dr Jason Lyle, he is an

astrophysicist.

He's got his PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado Boulder and he has been working full -time in

apologetics ministry.

Contributing to the Creation Museum's planetarium shows my wife and I just recently went there over the

summer and my wife even today Dr. Lyle, she looked outside and she began to tear up

and remembered the presentation.

She's like, it's just amazing to like stop and think about God's creation.

And so it was very I didn't think it would impact her that much.

I mean, you know, you look at the stars.

Yeah, you kind of know but every now and then she'll just stop.

It's like it is incredible.

And so she was really blessed by the the planetarium presentation there.

And dr. Lyle has also written many books his most popular I think I mean you can correct me if I'm wrong is the ultimate proof

for creation.

And of course, he has understanding Genesis and some great texts on Logic.

Many of you guys who follow my content know that I teach eighth grade logic and debate and I use as my main textbook

dr. Lyle's Book there.

So if you are interested you can look those up on his website or on Amazon dr. Lyle.

Thank you so much for coming back on.

Why don't you say hi to folks?

Yeah, my pleasure.

It's good to be back on with you and.

Talk about some interesting stuff.

Hopefully.

Absolutely.

Well to be specific many you might be wondering.

Well, he has his background in astrophysics.

Oh, what the heck is he.

Is he on here talking about evolution?

Well, if you're familiar with his ministry, he's interacted a lot with evolutionists.

He has addressed many of their arguments in his books.

What folks might find particularly interesting is that the way he interacts with Evolutionary

arguments he often comes from comes at it from a logical perspective.

Showing logical fallacies in many of their arguments.

So that's super super helpful, but we're gonna be talking specifically about bird evolution and so the

questions that I'm going to be asking are.

Pretty much arising from a video that was sent to me entitled Feathered

dinosaurs never existed and it's got like an archaeopteryx with an X out and it's pretty much in a

PhD biologist.

Responding to creationist arguments.

So these questions are not my own.

These are things that popped up in the video.

And so hopefully they will be beneficial for folks who are interested in this topic.

So does that make sense?

Dr. Lyle?

Does you're ready to jump right in?

Sounds good.

Let's do it.

All right.

We'll also give Dr. Lyle an opportunity to unpack the ultimate proof of creation as well.

So after we kind of respond or he responds to these these points these questions, perhaps you can lay that out for us

so here is a creationist argument that was.

I guess one of the things that the Biologist was responding to if dinosaurs evolved into birds.

There should be creatures with both bird only and dinosaur only features, but we don't find any and so his

response was.

That.

Stating that there are numerous examples of creatures with both bird and dinosaur characteristics.

Examples include the archaeopteryx the micro Raptor and the Confucius Sornis I think I got that right

which have features such as long tails feathers and bird -like skeletons.

Additionally many theropod dinosaurs show evidence of feathers.

So here's your question How do you explain fossils like the archaeopteryx and the micro Raptor that show both?

Bird like and dinosaur like traits such as feathers and long tails are these examples.

Are these examples not evidence of?

Transitional forms.

The three examples that were listed there are 100 % birds.

They do not have Dinosaur only characteristics now you could say well they have some

characteristics of dinosaurs.

Yes, but so do I that doesn't make me a dinosaur, you know, some dinosaurs had teeth.

I have teeth.

That doesn't make me a dinosaur.

Dinosaurs had vertebrae.

I have vertebrae.

It doesn't make me a dinosaur.

What is unique to dinosaurs is their hip structure.

Well, they're reptiles.

First of all dinosaurs are reptiles.

But they're different from modern reptiles In a couple of ways one of which is is totally

unique to dinosaurs.

That's their hip structure.

Modern reptiles have their hips out to the side in a sprawling position.

Or their legs out to the side and sprawling position.

That's the way their hips are wired.

And so like think of a crocodile or a lizard their legs are kind of out to the side and that's good for short.

Spurts if you want to you know chase after something very quickly, but not good for long -distance running.

Dinosaurs were different.

Dinosaurs had their legs underneath their body kind of like ours.

But their their hip structure is unique and there's two different versions of it in the dinosaur world.

There are those dinosaurs that have the so -called lizard hip.

Even though that's not like lizards and then there are those that are called bird hipped even though they're not really like birds.

But the reason for that name is there's a bone in the pelvis.

There's the pubis bone and if it points forward as it does in

lizards then in Modern reptiles then the dinosaurs are referred to as lizard hip if it points

backwards the way it does in birds.

Then they're referred to as bird hipped.

But the fact is their hips are unique and there isn't any living creature that has those so I would like

to see if evolution were true something that was.

Something that had characteristics of a bird like feathers.

Feathers as far as we know are unique to birds and.

And then something that is unique to dinosaurs, which would be their hip structure.

And we don't we don't have that the three examples that were listed have the typical Bird

structure in terms of their hips and their legs the way that that a bird's femur bones are is different from a dinosaur.

Bird femurs are inside their body.

So you don't actually see the top part of the legs of a bird.

You see there from their knees down.

So if you ever wondered if birds have knees they do but they're they're kind of inside the body.

That's that's where it comes out and that's different for dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs have their femurs exposed like like ours.

So bird femurs don't move very much when they walk there.

They're primarily walking with their knees and then their their ankle bones.

So we don't find we don't find something that's an intermediate between those two.

Also, I would love to see something that's intermediate between a scale and a feather and there's just nothing like that.

Scales are well designed for what they do feathers are well designed for what they do.

There's nothing in between and the the older evolutionist literature.

And I don't I don't know if they still believe this because it frankly was hard to believe even then but the idea that scales Become frayed

and eventually become feathers.

Feathers have a totally different structure from scales.

Feathers have a quill a Central quill that's that's produced by a follicle.

It's actually more like a hair than a scale and then and then the quill comes out the quill is

hollow and then it has barbs that extend away from that and then it Has barbules that extend away from that and the barb the

barbules have little hooks on the end of them.

It's a it's an amazing structure and what we don't find is anything even remotely in between a scale and a feather.

That's what I would want to see if I were to believe that Birds evolved from dinosaurs or

other reptiles.

And by the way, not all evolutionists believe that dinosaurs or that dinosaurs turn into birds or that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

They all believe birds evolved from reptiles, but not all of them believe that they evolved specifically from dinosaurs.

Introducing all access your premium gateway to deeper apologetic and theological insights through Q &A

sessions Theological lectures and exclusive bonus content all access takes your learning to the next level.

Support the Ministry of Apologia Studios while unlocking incredible resources like ask me anything Which is an

interactive live stream featuring Jeff Durbin.

We have the Academy featuring theological lectures from leading experts and exclusive content from shows like Apologia

radio and Cultish with more exciting content on the way.

There's never been a better time to join visit Apologia studios comm and click join to get started today.

Now when people look at similarities, you can't you kind of mentioned like well you have similarities with.

With some of these other animals, what is the role of our.

I mean we talk a lot about this on this channel.

What what is the role of one's presuppositions in terms of how they interpret perceived relevant

similarities?

Obviously we have similarities, but then they would argue well.

These are relevant similarities to make an evolutionary link.

What role do our presuppositions playing all of this a.

Huge one because I would also expect similarities and differences in organisms because the way God has structured his universe

is Such that it's possible to classify things and I think he did it that way.

Partly for our benefit and I think partly because it extends from his triune nature.

God is one in nature being is three in persons.

And so when God created different things in the universe, they have certain things in common.

They're one in one sense, but they're different in other sense.

This is the issue of the one in the many.

Which I would argue the Trinitarian God makes sense of and no other world you can really make sense of that.

And so it's not just in the animal kingdom.

I did a series of articles on elementary particles particles that can't be divided into smaller particles.

You can classify them into a nested hierarchy the same way you do with living organisms.

You know how we in living organisms you have kingdom phylum, you know.

Class family genus species and so on and and you can classify Organisms that way based on similarities and

differences.

You can do the same thing with elementary particles whether they're fermions or bosons.

And you know you have leptons and then you have the two Subfamilies the neutral leptons the charged leptons and so on you can divide

in the same way.

But nobody argues that leptons evolved from non leptons.

You see the evolution is a non -starter there.

You could do the same thing with numbers, but nobody nobody argues that seven evolved from three.

Numbers have similarities and differences.

And so I would argue on the basis of creation I would expect to see patterns in the biological world.

Similarities and differences between organisms that allow us to classify them and say these Organisms have these

similarities they belong in this category.

And by the way, there's some subjectivity into how you do that sure and people complain, you know.

Well, the Bible says classifies bats as birds.

Why not?

I mean, there's there's no reason why the Bible has to use the same classification system as Linnaeus.

And so, you know, we decide well, we think bats have more in common with mammals, even though they fly.

So we're gonna classify them as a mammal.

That's fine.

There's there's some subjectivity there, but the same would be true in terms of how they classify dinosaurs how they classify birds.

But I would argue that there's no evidence that Dinosaurs evolved into birds that their descendants

were birds.

And so what evolutionists are looking at is they're looking at certain similarities and differences and they're saying see we'd expect that and I'm saying

Yeah, and so would I so it's the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

They're saying if evolution were true, we'd expect to find a nested hierarchy in biology.

We do find a nested hierarchy in biology.

Therefore evolution is true.

That's the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent because I could equally well say if God created we'd expect to find a nested hierarchy.

And we do so what would you what would you?

Here's what I would challenge the evolutionists to do.

What would you expect the differences to be between our worldviews?

What would I expect to find that you would not expect to find and vice versa?

And I would I would say that if evolution were true and everything's in a constant state of change due to mutations and natural

selection.

Calling out the the ones that are not favorable I'd expect to see partial features things that are in between

scales and feathers and we do not find that.

Mm -hmm.

Would you say that the identification of relevant similarities is worldview dependent in terms of how

people choose to categorize them?

Yes, and in terms of what what are the more important similarities and things like that?

I'll give you an example with archaeopteryx.

That's the one that I've studied a little more than the others.

Archaeopteryx is a bird.

It's found in Jurassic.

And by the way, most evolutionists would say it's a bird and by the way, it's found in Jurassic strata.

That's the same strata that dinosaurs are found and they're found in Jurassic.

Well, it's some Triassic Jurassic and in Cretaceous.

Those are the rock layers.

They're found in and it's found in those layers.

It's a bird.

It has feathers.

It has a wishbone.

It has perching feet.

It's got the femurs that are the way Modern birds are so it is it is a bird but it has some unusual

characteristics and it's these unusual characteristics that evolutionists like to point to.

Archaeopteryx had teeth.

It did it had teeth and modern birds don't have teeth.

And so that's very interesting we used to think that Lack of teeth was something that was characteristic of a bird

and then what you find is you find an extinct species that had teeth.

And we realized that's not unique.

That's not something that is uniquely characteristic to a bird.

And in fact, we've now found other species of extinct birds that have teeth.

But if you but if you say well see that means it's a dinosaur.

No, I have teeth and I'm not a dinosaur.

So that's not that's not a unique characteristic of dinosaurs is teeth.

And by the way, some dinosaurs had teeth and some didn't so that's not a distinguishing characteristic of dinosaur.

It's unusual for birds today.

But in the past some birds had teeth.

It also lacked feathers on its head.

And so you can see the scales on the head.

It had scales and so there you go dinosaurs have scales.

I got news for you.

All modern birds have scales if you look at the feet on modern birds.

They have scales so scales are not something that is unique to reptiles.

Birds have them, too.

Now Archaeopteryx didn't have feathers on its head and so you can see the scales there, but that's not unique.

Even today there are birds that lack feathers on their head.

Vultures lack feathers on their head and so that helps them with with scavenging and so on.

So that's something that's not that's neither here nor there the other characteristic.

That's that evolutionists really like to pay attention to is the long tail of the Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx not only had a long tail, but he had bones in it.

He had vertebrae in his tail and that's that's.

Well established.

We've now found 12 different specimens of Archaeopteryx in various places.

They all have 100 % feathers.

They all have the wishbone and they all have that long bony tail and you say see there you go.

Because dinosaurs a lot of dinosaurs had long bony tails.

Okay, but that's not unique to dinosaurs.

You know a dog has a long bony tail that doesn't make a dog a dinosaur.

So again, that's not something that's unique, but it is something that modern birds don't have.

So this is another one of those characteristics.

We thought that that birds lacked a bony tail, but what now we know that there are a few species.

They're extinct now that had that bony tail, but in terms of feathers they had feathers.

They had flight feathers.

Feathers that are designed for flight because not not all birds fly, right?

Some birds have feathers that are used for warmth and so on.

But birds that have feathers that are designed for fly the feathers have an asymmetric quill.

You might have noticed if you picked up like a blue jay feather or something if they're shorter on one side.

They're longer than the other and that helps aerodynamically.

It's designed for flight.

Well Archaeopteryx had the asymmetric quill.

So it had not only feathers but feathers that are designed for flight.

And so that's something that would be challenging.

I would think to an evolutionist who would say, you know.

As birds are starting to evolve and the scales are starting to turn into feathers.

You'd think that they would be non flight feathers initially because they haven't learned how to fly yet.

So on but Archaeopteryx is a hundred percent bird and so are these other ones that you mentioned you got the

Microraptor and the Confucian and Soros named after Confucius, but in any case they also had

flight feathers.

Interestingly the latter two had feathers on their legs as well.

And so that's that's a little perplexing as to how they flew some people refer to them as four winged birds.

Because their legs had feathers on yeah, but we don't know that they flew that way.

They might have just had their legs underneath their body like modern birds.

So that's that's that's an unsolved.

That's an unresolved dilemma in the world of biology.

But these are a hundred percent birds.

They're in and they're found in layers that are below the dinosaurs that people would like to say they evolved from you know.

Things like Velociraptor.

That's a Cretaceous dinosaur.

That's found in higher layers than Archaeopteryx and so it can't have evolved from it.

Because even in the evolutionary view that means it's more recent I would say it's maybe a few

days more recent.

But they would say millions of years more recent so it can't have evolved from it.

So what they're talking about now is what they call a ghost lineage that the proto bird which we have no

fossils of you know.

It diversified into Archaeopteryx and then Velociraptor and these other things, but we don't actually find any fossils of that.

So again, the evidence isn't there.

Dr. Greg Bonson was a renowned Christian apologist philosopher and seminary professor and his life's

work is now at your fingertips.

With Bonson you Bonson you aims to bring seminary level education to every Christian anytime anywhere.

Absolutely free.

Gain access to over 140 courses covering theology apologetics eschatology and law

featuring sermons Seminary lectures and more from the legendary. Dr. Greg Bonson.

Now if you sign up today at Apology of studios .com and join over 13 ,000 users already benefiting from

this incredible resource You will not regret it and soon they're expanding.

With Bonson you plus and Bonson you live bringing fresh Supplemental learning and real -time engagement

again.

Go to Apology of studios .com and start your journey today.

Interest that's actually very fascinating now.

I love I'm thinking as you're talking about Jurassic and Cretaceous The Jurassic Park theme song

was was nicely playing in the background of my mind because I remember when watching Jurassic Park there, it

just seems to kind of just be an assumption that Dinosaurs evolved into birds.

I think that's the assumption that was made in the movie.

You you just said that not all evolutionists think that is the idea that

Dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Prevalent view if if if it is, you know, why if it's not what do the other evolution is

hold to if they don't hold?

To that evolutionary link there.

I.

Think I think it's the prevalent view but there are evolutionists who are adamantly against that.

Alan fiducia, for example.

He's very qualified Biologist paleontologist, but he's a bird expert.

He's bird expert and he doesn't think that they evolved from dinosaur.

He still thinks they evolved from reptiles that that's something that is universal to evolutionists.

They all believe that reptiles some some of the descendants of reptiles are birds but not all of

them believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but.

And again, the reason goes back to these similarities and differences that we find.

And you could argue I think cogently that dinosaurs had more

Characteristics that are shared with birds than other reptiles that are still around today.

A lot of dinosaurs had hollow bones like birds do and that probably reduced their weight.

There is some evidence, although it's very disputed that some dinosaurs may have had the unidirectional lung system

modern reptiles don't have that although there's been a recent claim that crocodilians have a unidirectional lung

system, but most animals don't most animals.

In human beings where we have the two -way system.

We breathe in and then the air goes out the same path that it goes in.

And so when you're breathing in you get nice oxygenated air, but when you breathe out.

It's now got some carbon dioxide in it, which you're expelling.

Birds have a more efficient lung system than we do because it's unidirectional be the air goes in one way and goes out another

way.

Okay, so it's kind of like this.

And so the air goes through any particular section of their system in one direction and that's very efficient.

It allows them to get oxygen very efficiently.

There's a recent claim that crocodilians have something it's although their system is not exactly like a birds.

But it may be unidirectional as well know why they need it.

I have no idea.

Maybe it helps them holding their breath underwater.

I don't know but with birds.

They need that system and it also reduces the amount that their lungs Expand, you know because our lungs

expand like that.

Well a bird in flight, you don't want to change your your density that much you want to maintain kind of a constant density.

So it helps with their ability to fly as well.

There's been some claims that some dinosaurs have that Dave Minton has argued that they that they don't that the one

dinosaur where we have good evidence of its lung system.

It's it's it's like a modern reptile.

It's so it's it has the two -way system kind of like ours.

So these are some of the things that make dinosaurs a little more attractive as the ancestor of birds than other types

of reptiles but again We do not find anywhere in the fossil record a sequence

that would demonstrate a dinosaur becoming a bird.

It's just not there.

Birds are found in the same layer.

The oldest birds we find are found in the same layers as dinosaurs and they're 100 % bird with 100 % feathers.

You don't find anything in between scales and feathers and that's what I would like to see that would be convincing to me.

Hmm.

Okay, I'm kind of thinking outside the box here.

If if interpretation of observation is dependent upon our worldview and our presuppositions Suppose

an evolutionary biologist maybe he's an atheist as well.

Then there's nothing empirically that would convince you of evolution because any type of empirical observation.

You are gonna observe in say like the fossils or whatever.

You're just gonna reinterpret from a biblical creationist perspective.

So isn't it?

Isn't it kind of like disingenuous dr I'll to say that well.

Here's what I would like to see when in reality your presuppositions are always going to prevent you from seeing it from my

evolutionary perspective.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, but I would find it challenging to explain something that's in between a scale and a feather and.

And I would like him to produce that and I would think that there would be thousands of them because we find we find all Kinds of fossils of birds.

We find all kinds of fossils of reptiles.

Why don't we find one in between?

I mean, there's 12 specimens just of archaeopteryx that we've discovered and all of them have a hundred percent feathers.

So I you know, I agree in principle that we both have our worldview.

I would argue that his worldview is still in for mine and is therefore Inconsistent anyway, because he's trying to do science and that only makes

sense in the creation world.

But we can we can come back to that but yeah I mean, he's got his presuppositions that that caused him to draw

the conclusions that he draws, but nonetheless.

The evidence is consistent with what I would expect and it's really not if he's honest with it with himself.

It's not consistent with what he would expect.

Darwin admitted.

Then Darwin thought that the problem was the fact that they didn't know the geological record that well.

They didn't have as many fossils back then as we have today.

Well, we've had a hundred and fifty years to think about it and to discover more fossils and it's it's still

not there.

So that that excuse doesn't work anymore.

Where where would you where are the scathers?

Where are the scales that are changing into feathers?

We don't find them.

That's the technical term I am sure.

All right.

Well, thank you for that detailed answer there.

Appreciate it.

Here's the next point here.

I suppose the creationist in the video made the assertion that there are no feathered dinosaurs.

The structures evolution is called feathers are just decayed.

Is it collagen fibers?

Did I say that right.

Collagen fibers?

And so the evolution is true in the video refutes this claim by citing multiple studies showing that these structures are feathers not

collagen fibers the microscopic structure.

Pigmentation and arrangement of these structures closely resemble modern feathers.

They also note that some dinosaurs such as the velociraptor and the.

Sinoceratrix.

Did I say that right.

Sinoceratrix?

Okay, cool.

Show clear evidence of feathers even down to patterns of pigment and quill knobs.

So the question is what is your response?

Dr. Lyle.

To studies showing that the microscopic Microscopic structures of so -called proto

feathers match those of modern feathers and that pigments in these structures indicate patterns consistent with

bird feathers.

Okay, I think the creationist is right.

I think I think the The evolutionist is responding to him.

I think he's wrong about that.

But I want to put this in context because.

What if God made some dinosaurs with feathers?

I? mean he God could do that there are other animals that have characteristics that are unusual for the

Classification which they're gonna take the duck -billed platypus, for example.

No, that's classified as a mammal because it produces milk the females produce milk, but it has some unusual

features.

It has a bill like a duck.

It's got webbed feet.

It's it lays eggs like a reptile.

Some of them are poisonous.

The males are poisonous like a snake.

What did it evolve from it have to have evolved from everything because it's called it's a mosaic animal.

It's it's not one that that evolution is like to put in their family tree because it evolved from

everything.

And so if if God made dinosaurs with feathers God could do that.

And by the way, there are some creationists who believe in feathered dinosaurs.

No, I happen to not be one of them because I haven't been persuaded yet.

But my point is that wouldn't be devastating to a creationist worldview.

It would just mean that God made some unusual animals with characteristics that we thought were unique.

To this variety when in fact this other variety shares them so that.

That could that could be possible that being said I'm not convinced of the evidence that's been persuaded.

So this is an area where it's my worldview allows for that.

But I haven't been persuaded by the evidence because collagen when collagen does collagen is a connective tissue.

It's in the skin cells of your body and so on like that.

And when it decays it produces these fiber structures that look almost exactly like the kind that we find

surrounding certain dinosaur Remains we find these fibers.

They they don't really look like feathers.

They don't have they don't have a distinct quill with barbs and barbules.

That's what I'd expect for feathers.

Now when you find remains of Archaeopteryx where it's been buried rapidly.

You can see the feather impressions.

There's no doubt Archaeopteryx had feathers.

The the feather impressions are clear.

You can see the barbs and barbules.

It's Incredible.

It is incredible.

Yeah, it is but when we find dinosaur remains.

And sometimes the skin is proof is the earliest impressions of the skin are preserved.

We find scales.

I've seen them I've seen the tail of a Tyrannosaurus where you can see the scales on it.

The feathers aren't there now in some cases where the thing has started to decay.

You get these fibrous projections and they they look like collagen fibers and they say all but we found we found

these bumps on the bones and these these are.

You know the quill follicles.

You don't know that all you know is that they're bumps on the bones.

The way they're distributed is not typical of the way quills are distributed and in some cases.

They're missing like velociraptors have been found with these bumps on their bones that they say are where the quills come

out.

But some velociraptors don't have them and so there's some sometimes the bones are smooth.

Furthermore certain points of ligaments attachment can also form structures like that.

So again, there are other explanations for this the argument that the evolutionist has made.

It's an inductive argument.

He's saying based on this and this and this we think this is similar to feathers.

I get that but I think it's more similar to other things that we've seen like like decaying collagen.

So I'm not persuaded by that some creationist might be I'm not persuaded by that.

Sure now the next point here.

It's kind of related to what you mentioned in terms of bird lungs and things like that.

But the creationist said that birds have a completely different skeletal system and lung structure than dinosaurs proving

that they are.

Not related to which the evolutionist explains that birds share numerous skeletal traits with

theropod dinosaurs including a Perforated.

I can't pronounce this.

Is it is it it's a CE Tabulum.

T a b u l u m.

Which is I don't know how I'm pronouncing how to pronounce that but it's suppose.

It's referring to like an open hip socket type of structure hollow bones and a wishbone.

Additionally some dinosaurs such as certain theropods had Unidirectional lung systems similar to

modern birds.

So here's the question.

Birds and theropod dinosaurs share features such as hollow bones perforated I'm gonna say

ace tabulum.

I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right and unidirectional air flow in their lungs.

How do you explain their shared traits if birds did not evolve from dinosaurs?

Would you appeal to this kind of their similarity?

But there's not a necessary connection that warrants the conclusion that they're evolutionarily related.

Yeah, two points one is I think the similarities in some cases are exaggerated or non -existent

in other cases.

The similarities are there but I would expect that because God has created organisms in a nested hierarchy the same way He did

elementary particles, even though we all agree elementary particles don't evolve elementary particles are created.

So.

And in particular, you know, he talks about the unidirectional lung system.

We don't know that we don't know that dinosaurs had that we know birds have that because we can examine them today dinosaurs.

We we mainly find their fossilized bones and it's hard to know what the lung system would be based on

that Dave Minton has argued based on the one dinosaur where we found Evidence where even it's you could

even trace out its lung system based.

The fossilization was so well preserved that it has the.

It has a lung system similar to a modern reptile where it's not unidirectional so.

Again, if some dinosaurs had a unidirectional Lung system that would be interesting because we we

thought that only birds had that but again, there's some evidence that crocodilians have that now so.

That's not that's not something that's unique to birds in that case.

So that's neither here nor there in terms of an evolutionary argument and then these other characteristics.

Yeah dinosaurs had some.

One thing I'll point out the the dinosaurs that they're talking about these theropods that they say, you know.

These are the ones that are real similar to birds.

Remember I talked about how there's two varieties of dinosaurs based on their hip structure the lizard hip and the bird hip.

Guess which one they think evolved into birds.

The lizard hip.

So the ones that are less like birds are the ones they think that's interesting birds it's like that's.

Interesting.

Why is it?

Why is that?

Well, it's it's because there are other characteristics that they think are more similar to birds.

That's the ones like velociraptor.

Those are the ones that have their their lizard hip.

Their lizard hip and those are the ones that they think eventually evolved into birds.

Despite the fact that birds don't have lizard hips.

In fact again bird hips are unique to birds.

We don't find any dinosaurs that have a structure even though we call them bird hip.

Sure, they're the way they're their femurs are is different from birds.

Birds Have those femurs that are almost invisible not quite but almost immovable.

So I think the similarities are exaggerated.

There are some genuine ones.

I expect that on the basis of biblical creation.

So I have yet to hear an argument for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

Mm -hmm.

That's interesting.

Now the next question is kind of similar.

So I'm gonna skip it because I think you kind of just answered it.

I mean the question was if birds are completely unique from dinosaurs.

How do you explain?

Transitional fossils like the Archaeopteryx.

Well, that's that's that has not been proven, right?

It's not true.

Absolutely Okay.

So here's another statement that the creationist Makes dinosaurs lived only a few thousand years ago and

coexisted with humans.

And so the evolutionist points out that Radiometric dating and the fossil record placed dinosaurs millions of years before humans with

no credible evidence of coexistence.

They argue that the scientific consensus supports an ancient earth and evolutionary timeline.

So the question is what evidence do you have that humans and dinosaurs coexisted despite the?

overwhelming and I emphasize that Overwhelming scientific consensus that they lived

millions of years apart as though you've never heard this one before.

Why don't you share your thoughts there?

Dr. Lyle?

Oh, he really stepped in it there because the evidence there is pretty overwhelming that dinosaurs did live much more recently.

He mentions radiometric dating met.

Radiometric dating is not used on fossils.

Anyway, it's used on Rocks and only certain rocks igneous rocks that surround you find some rocks that are below

the fossil.

Some they're above the fossil and then it brackets the age.

But but as we pointed out radiometric dating is based on all kinds of assumptions.

It gives wrong answers on rocks of known age.

So that's not a reliable method.

What's far more reliable is carbon dating.

It's not infallible either, but at least gives right ages.

On things whose age we know by other means and we have carbon dated dinosaur remains.

And we get thousands of years in fact.

Every to my knowledge every Dinosaur remain that's been carbonated as long as there's enough collagen left in it.

You can carbon date him and to my knowledge everyone that's been carbon dated gives ages of thousands of years.

Now I hear this often is that they they never give millions of years.

They always give thousands of years.

But how many thousands of years do they give.

And are the thousands of years that they do give? consistent with a

Position that holds to the universe being around six thousand years old.

So, how would you navigate that.

Because I would I would assume some people said fine.

You only get thousands.

But you still get more thousands than what the young earth creationist is posited Positing for the age of the universe and so forth,

right?

Well, all these age dating techniques are based on certain assumptions with carbon dating.

The assumption is that the c14 in the atmosphere has been approximately constant over history.

If you make that assumption and you apply it to dinosaur remains.

You'll get like 50 ,000 years when the true age would be more like 5 ,000 years because we think a lot of these remains are

flood layers of 4 ,500 5 ,000 years ago something like that.

So why are we getting why is it 10 times older than the true age?

Because the c14 in the atmosphere has not been constant and there's very good evidence of this.

We think that around the time of the flood year the c14 in the atmosphere was only about 2 to 5 what

it is today.

Okay.

Now if you include for that if you compensate for that and you include that in the calculation.

Then the ages line right up they go back to about 4 ,000 4 ,500 to 5 ,000 years something like that.

I've done those calculations.

So I know that I know that works.

But if you don't make that as if you don't compensate for that assumption if you make the false Assumption that the atmospheric c14

has been constant which it isn't because it's it's increasing.

It's created by cosmic rays.

So it's it's increasing in our atmosphere.

If you don't assume that then you'll get ages that are inflated by a factor of 10.

But there's no way you could get that out to millions of years.

And so for the sake of hypothesis, I'm not saying that the carbon.

I've never claimed that the carbon dates are infallible.

My point is the secularists have a lot of confidence in these different radiometric dating methods.

I've pointed out that these other ones the uranium -lead potassium argon methods Often give wrong ages on

things of known age volcanoes and things like that.

They give ages that are Far far older than the true age carbon gives an age.

That's maybe ten times older than the true age and yet it gives ages that are consistent roughly with the biblical timescale.

And if if these fossils were really millions of years old.

There should be no detectable c14 in them c14 has a half -life of 5 ,700 years.

And these these fossils are found down deep in layers of earth that are well protected well insulated from cosmic rays.

Which would be the only way to generate new c14 a little bit with radioactivity, but not much.

And so the fact that you find c14 and these remains limits their age to a few thousand years.

So that's one so in terms of just the age dating methods even using the secular methods.

Even giving into their assumptions you get ages that are much less than what they claim.

So then secondly, go ahead.

So I.

Remember listening to a debate you had with dr. Ross years ago.

I think it was moderated by dr. Frank Turek.

And I remember Hugh likened the view that

the universe is between six to ten thousand years old.

As something comparable to like believing in flat earth just to show they kind of like how

incredulous the position is.

Where does the confidence and the assertion of Overwhelming evidence in

favor of an old earth come from if it just boils down to well.

It's just predicated on certain assumptions.

I was like, well that seems like Okay, then people acknowledge.

I think these assumptions happen to be correct.

But to say that the other side is just there's no evidence for it.

Like where does the confidence come from?

Because I mean as you know.

You're often ridiculed.

Other people with PhDs who know the issues Often are ridiculed for holding to a view that the universe is

six to ten thousand years old.

Where does that.

Where does that come from you think?

The confidence comes from consensus the confidence comes from the fact that everybody else believes in it.

Yeah, I know that because I've had conversations with scientists secular scientists.

Like why do you believe in the millions of years and at first they'll say radiometric dating and then I'll point out that's based On all kinds of assumptions and if they know

anything about physics, they'll know that's true and then okay.

So what's the real reason because it wasn't radiometric dating.

What's the real reason?

Let's say well because there's all these other scientists that believe in it one time I was in it was in my

as an undergraduate I was in a geology class and the topic came up radiometric dating and then somebody said but how do we know it's accurate?

How do you know just there are these assumptions?

How do we know it's accurate?

And my professor said well, you know, the astronomers tell us the solar system is 4 .5 billion years old.

So that kind of confirms what we're seeing with the radiometric dating.

And then a few years later, I'm in grad school.

I'm in a Astrophysics class and we're talking about age dating the solar system and the question comes up.

But how do we know that that's accurate and and I'm not making this up.

He said well, the geologists tell us these rocks are 4 .5 billion years old.

Everybody thought the other guy had the evidence and.

But they but if you if you pin them down they know that they don't have the evidence they or at least.

They don't have conclusive evidence.

They don't have evidence.

They know that there are assumptions that they've made and so whenever I hear somebody say the overwhelming

consensus I'm thinking you don't really have confidence to defend your position.

Sure, you are trusting that all these other scientists believe and that's really the reason you hold to that.

It's not because of evidence.

Sure.

Because you think everybody else has the other and I would agree with you that that's that's kind of the reasons I get when I talk to people but but

surely there are scientists who have actually Done like like the actual people who've done the equations so

to speak.

So are you saying well The experts experts to which everyone is appealing to to say this

is why it's the case.

Let's kind of bypass those people who are pointing the experts and go to the experts themselves.

When you go to the experts who say this is clearly the case you would argue that it's not clearly the case.

There are worldview assumptions and Assumptions with respect to how to do science is all being in play here.

Is that what you're saying?

And they would point to experts in other fields that agree with them.

That's what they would do.

They would admit.

Yeah, just based on what I've got here.

But hey, you know and a lot and of course if they're an evolutionist if you're an evolutionist.

You have to have the millions of years.

Well, you have to have that because you need the time.

Yeah, yeah, you need the time to make it sound plausible.

So they'll never give that up.

They'll never give up the millions of years.

Not while evolution is still around.

Okay, and and what about.

So we talk about carbon dating and things like this.

But what about people who try to posit an old universe, you know focusing on arguments that come from your

area of expertise.

Which I would imagine is not necessarily carbon dating but more of the astrophysics and the cosmic clocks and things like that.

Why does it seem to be that while while a position is not demonstrated because of consensus?

Why does there seem to be a consensus both in the carbon dating realm and in the astrophysics realm?

Does that make sense?

Yeah, well the a lot, you know, most of the most of my astrophysics colleagues believe in evolution.

And so they have to have Earth that's billions years old and it's in the universe.

So the universe has to be billions years old.

So they're not open.

They're not open to discussion of alternatives.

That's not something that they would allow.

I mean if you wanted to say I think it's 20 billion years old instead of 14 billion.

They might be open to that.

But they have to.

Their worldview has to have evolution in it and that requires the billions years at least on earth.

So they have to have a universe that's two billions years old and so they're very selective about.

They cherry -pick the evidence a little bit.

They really do because I can give them examples of things in space.

That natural sort of clocks or that can be interpreted as clocks that even given their assumptions.

Can't last millions of years like blue stars or the rate at which galaxies wrap up and so on.

Well, I want you to hold that thought because I have a whole set of questions that I didn't send you that relate to

rescuing devices.

So I want to talk about that because I knew that that was going to come up and I think that's so important in terms Of understanding kind of the

presuppositional commitment that people have.

I mean science is not this as you know.

It's not this kind of objective field where we just kind of innocently and Presuppositional

less Lee approach the data.

So I want to talk about rescuing devices so you can save your your ammo.

For when I ask you those because I know it seemed like you're going in that direction.

But let me move on to the next.

Question here, but if it up to because on the previous question there there were two parts to it.

He was asking about yeah.

How we knew that dinosaurs lived recently?

Yes.

I just hit one aspect of that.

Okay.

But the other aspect is people have seen them and there are all kinds of historic records of people encountering now.

They won't call them dinosaurs because that's a modern word that was invented in 1841.

The ancient word the ancient English word that people would use to describe a Dinosaur is a dragon and there are

all kinds of legends of people encountering dragons and there are even drawings of them.

Bishop Bell's tomb in Carlisle Cathedral.

We know when the guy died it was I forget the exact year was around 1600.

This was a couple hundred years before dinosaur fossils had been found and they were starting to be reconstructed and you'll look along the

strips.

The brass strips along that tomb and there are carvings of different animals and without any special emphasis.

There are two what appeared to be sauropod dinosaurs.

Long neck of the long tail just as clear as anything and any child would identify that.

Oh, that's one of those long neck dinosaurs.

Sure.

And we find we find cave paintings of them.

We find sculptures.

There's a temple in Cambodia that has what appears to be a stegosaurus on it's wonderful.

Vance Nelson has a whole book where he documents these things ancient artifacts where people drew what we now understand to be

Dinosaurs and apparently they saw them because they hadn't found the bones of them yet.

Creatures with the skin on them and everything and then most importantly we have we have the Word of God which indicates

that all land animals.

Were made on day six.

Sure dinosaurs are land animals.

Therefore.

They're made on day six.

They did live at the same time as people and I think the Bible's even describing one in Job chapter 40 verse 15

the behemoth Hebrew word meaning beast of beasts.

You read the description of it.

It's got a tail that sways like a cedar tree.

I mean, it just doesn't fit.

Yeah, but dr. Lyle, what is a day really mean?

I mean I'm just kidding.

What is a tail like a cedar tree.

Really mean.

It means a tail like a cedar tree.

Well, you know this is poetry and I'm just being I'm being silly.

The funny thing is Job is poetic, but it still has to be interpreted, right?

I mean, there's still there's still a literal animal that that God is describing to Job and Comparing his power to if it was a fictional

creature than Job would have been like so you're saying your power is fictional.

It wouldn't make any sense.

It's obviously because if you read it in context There's other creatures that God is describing to Joe.

Basically God gives Job a quiz Beginning in chapter 38 to say, you know, cuz Job wants to have a

conversation with God God says let's see if you're qualified first and he starts asking him these questions that Job can't answer and then

basically God makes the Argument if you can't even contend with this creature that I made what makes you think you can deal with me and Joe gets the.

Point.

This is I spoke without understanding.

I can't contend with the Almighty and he's not he's not comparing his power with like a fiction.

It's not like you know God saying who who created the incredible Hulk and who

can contend with him, you know as though it's like.

Okay, that's that's good.

All right.

So here's the next point here the evolutionist.

This is the creationist point in the video the evolution is belief that birds evolved.

Did I get that?

Am I asking the same thing here?

No, no, no.

No, that's not the question.

I was gonna ask.

Where is it?

See.

I'm getting old.

I'm becoming a dinosaur.

Okay.

So the evolutionist belief that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs is based on artistic reconstructions and movies and

museums not on scientific evidence and then of course the the biologist responds.

That the belief is based on substantial fossil evidence including shared anatomical features and transitional forms.

Movies and museums reflect this evidence, but are not its basis.

So bit pretty much.

Yeah, you do see this in the movies, but the movies are basing it upon really what is known scientific fact I suppose

so the question is how do you reconcile your claim that bird evolution is based on artistic

reconstructions?

At least how it's popularly believed right when numerous fossils demonstrate shared anatomical features

between theropod dinosaurs and birds.

We've already discussed shared anatomical features.

I share some anatomical features with dinosaurs.

That doesn't mean that I evolved from them or that or that evolution is true.

We would expect that as biblical creationists.

So that's not that's not compelling evidence in his worldview.

It is because he has dismissed the alternative.

He hasn't looked at what what is it that creationists would expect because sometimes evolutionists misrepresent creation.

That's a straw man argument.

Well, you know if creation is true All animals should be totally unique and have different care.

That's not the biblical God.

He didn't do that with elementary particles.

Why would he do that with with animals.

God made animals with similarities and differences partly so we could classify them.

So there's not just a billion unique totally different organisms.

You're really annoying.

Be.

Impossible to.

Our dominion mandate to take care of the planet requires us to understand it to some extent and that requires us to be able

to Classify things and so I would I would say that's not evidence for evolution.

What would be evidence for evolution is genuine transitions, which he hasn't demonstrated.

I mean, he's pointed out these birds that are 100 % birds because they have 100 % feathers, but he hasn't pointed out any scatters.

He hasn't pointed out anything in between a scale and a feather or any any structure that's sort of in between two two

things or.

You know or the dinosaur leg bones becoming bird leg bones.

Which we've already discussed are very different the way the femurs are sort of locked in with a bird and are inside the body and They're outside dinosaurs.

We don't find transitions between those.

So I think that the evidence that he's presented is is not it's not exist.

I don't think it's evidence for evolution.

I think it's consistent.

Everything is present presented is consistent with biblical creation.

Mm -hmm.

That's interesting.

All right.

Well, I want to kind of transition real quick.

So we kind of you kind of responded there and again, hopefully people who are watching this Recognize kind of

the importance of kind of a presuppositional approach is a lot of this is going to be based upon Assumptions right

and they're not necessarily kind of just blanket Assumptions that people haven't thought of.

I mean you do have Evolutionary biologists who are philosophically trained as well who are quite aware of the

presuppositions they bring to the table.

But I think for the Christian it's important to recognize what those are and challenge those and interact at that foundational level.

So what I want to shift here real quick is to focus on another area.

That is your Really your specialty and that's the ultimate proof for creation and for folks who

don't know it's a pretty good book as well.

I highly recommend folks check that out by dr. Lyle, but why don't you explain to us?

What is the ultimate proof of creation we can we can be here and we can critique evolution and all this

all these you know different things that can come up but Refuting another person's position doesn't demonstrate

one's own.

So what is the ultimate proof for creation?

And how does it differ from say other kinds of arguments in the realm of apologetics?

So when we're dealing with the ultimate proof we're dealing with a worldview issue because This is something that very

early on.

I recognized when I started studying creation versus evolution I would take a look at the evidence and I'd be like, yeah, that's

consistent with creation.

The evolutionist would take a look at the same evidence and say yeah, that's evolution.

How can that be?

How can it we're looking at the same fossils and we're drawing very different conclusions and what we just talked about there are evolutionists

that are aware of everything that I talked about in terms of The structure of birds dinosaurs and

so on and yet they believe in evolution.

How is that?

Obviously, we're coming to it with different with different presuppositions.

We're coming at we're coming at it with a different worldview about what what the evidence means.

Which evidence is most important which is less important.

We have our hierarchy.

We have our way of evaluating that evidence and so the the debate is not really about the evidence but how the

evidence ought to be interpreted and.

So somehow I need to demonstrate that my way of interpreting the evidence is correct.

And if it's not I need to relinquish it and adopt their way of thinking about the evidence.

But the Bible tells us the fear of the Lord's the beginning of knowledge.

And so the reason we can know things is because God has revealed them to us God and he does that any number of

ways He's given us senses that are basically reliable.

He's but most importantly he's given us his word, which is Propositional truth we can read it.

We can understand it.

It makes sense and It Because knowledge comes from God.

I would argue the Christian worldview has to be true in order for knowledge to be possible and that includes scientific knowledge.

And so just as an example of this when the scientist is interpreting the evidence He's assumed a bunch of things

and a lot of the things he's assumed I would agree with because they're Christian assumptions their biblical creationist assumptions.

He assumes that when he looks at the at the fossil and touches it that his senses are basically reliable.

Now I would certainly agree with that but I would point out that makes sense in a creationist worldview where God has created my senses.

He's created my brain my my mind.

And I can interpret that evidence and I understand it.

My eyes are reliably telling me something about the universe and that's not something you would necessarily expect in an

evolutionary Worldview if my eyes were just the result of evolution.

Why should they be reliable in terms of telling me something truthful about the universe?

Yeah.

Evolution.

Evolution is geared towards survival not geared toward truth.

Exactly.

Exactly.

It's some some evolution is confused those and they'll say well because it benefits my survival I said so does photosynthesis

photosynthesis benefits the survival of Grass.

Now suppose that photosynthesis is a side effect.

Produces feelings of consciousness or whatever.

Okay, how do you know that all your feelings of consciousness what you think?

You know about the universe.

How do you know that's not a side effect of photosynthesis, which does have survival value?

And so and I would argue that no evolution is going to answer that and there have been evolutionists that have argued and said.

Actually survival value does not equate the truth.

Those are two different things.

Hmm, and so I'll grant for the sake of hypothesis that that all my you know.

But my senses and things contribute to my survival value that doesn't make them truthful necessarily.

And even my ability to reason and and consider the various options and then choose the best if

I'm just chemistry.

There's no choice there if I'm just chemist chemistry doesn't have any choice.

It what it does is according to the deterministic laws of physics and so the idea that I can choose the best

rationality presupposes a Christian worldview where there's more to the universe than just Chemistry and so all these

things that scientists take for granted really are biblical creation principles.

One that I really like to hit on maybe we'll spend some time on it is Uniformity in nature not to be

confused with uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism is the belief that rates and conditions have always been like they are today.

I would reject that because there was a worldwide flood.

But I do believe that there's orderliness in nature and that God upholds the future like the past in terms of the basic what we

would Call laws of nature.

I would say those are descriptions of the way God normally upholds his creation and he does it in a consistent way for our

benefit.

And that's a tremendous blessing.

It's what what allows us to do science.

Secularists have no basis on their own worldview for uniformity in nature.

I've been I've been interacting people in comment section.

I mean, it's boggling To see that people are so unfamiliar with kind of like

basic History of philosophy.

It's like when I challenged the atheist that they can't account for uniformity and induction and things like this.

They think I'm I'm using some kind of presuppositional Apologetics voodoo on them when in

fact, this is actually something not brought up by Christians.

Primarily was brought up by like David Hume.

Like like your issue is not with me.

Your issue is with like is David Hume so people say well, you know, I don't need your God

to know that the future will be like the past.

We we Observe Regularity and we keep we conclude that things are

regular until we see things become irregular.

I'm like, wow, what a superficial way.

You're actually proving my point that you have no idea.

You have no idea how to understand the problem that's being set forth.

Have you have you had this experience before?

Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Okay, most scientists most PhD scientists the vast majority of them are

epistemologically not self -conscious.

They're not epistemologically self -conscious.

They are not aware of their own theory of truth.

They take for granted the scientific method without recognizing it is rooted in the Christian worldview.

It really is they take for granted uniformity in nature and when you ask them to defend it They'll use it in

its defense, which is what what you were saying there.

And let me try to because when I first heard this it took me a while to get this.

And so I want to make sure people understand this the question is how do we know the future?

Will be like the past in terms of basic principles.

How do I know that when I get up tomorrow gravity will work the same way it does today?

And and I'm not asking for any kind of certainty.

I'm just asking How do you know it's likely that the Sun will rise tomorrow because David Hume was stumped on that question.

He couldn't answer it right and most people will say well because it it's this.

How do we know the Sun will rise tomorrow because because yesterday it did and the day before that the day before that I say I'll grant you that

I'll grant you that in the past there was uniformity and even there.

Because I'm granting that your memory is reliable because your memory works on uniformity in nature, but I'll grant you that

but how do you know.

It'll be like that tomorrow.

Well, because it's always been that way.

Yes.

I know.

It's always been that way.

How do you know it'd be like that tomorrow?

And what they'll do is they'll say well in the past when we were back here.

You know the you know, and we didn't have to you know, what was tomorrow is now yesterday.

Sure enough the Sun rose tomorrow.

So we're assuming that it'll be like that in the future I say but you're assuming the very thing I'm asking you to prove right when you

whenever you use past experience as a basis for what's likely to happen in the future you are assuming uniformity and

that you.

And that assumption is itself.

This is the kicker for a lot of people and they don't they don't get it.

The assumption itself is not Empirically observed it is a an assumption that is being

inserted Without providing justification and the justification as you just pointed out is not the

repeated successes of the past I mean and again not a pre -supper kind of thing.

This is David Hume pointing this out.

I mean, this is this isn't difficult.

I mean, it's called the problem of induction.

It's not something that like we magically, you know me I hear all the time.

Dr Lyle, oh you guys, you know always talk about the problem of the one in the many but that's just a problem that

presuppositional is have created and swooped in to act as though they have the The the you know, the the answer to

the question like no, we didn't invent this.

This is a common issue in philosophy if you study the pre Socratics and so forth.

So it's very interesting to see that people are not very much acquainted with the history of philosophy.

Yes.

So the idea though the response that most people give when you ask them to defend uniformity is to say well.

It always worked in the past and therefore it will in the future and that's assuming uniformity it's begging the question.

And the interesting thing is the logic textbook that I always recommend the one that I really studied in depth

Introduction to logic by Copey and Cohen.

Uses that as the very example of begging the question.

It uses the fact that people try to use uniformity to justify uniformity the very thing that we're accused of doing when we

argue Presuppositionally, which is which was what we're not doing.

We're not doing it in the way that they that they suggest.

So I actually want to ask you about this so so because this comes up all the time and I It's

amazing how a hard -headed certain people can be and I suppose everyone could be hard -headed to a certain degree but someone

was claiming that the Transcendental argument that the Christian uses is fallaciously circular.

And so I I gave them the structure I said X is the necessary precondition for the possibility of Y

Y therefore X.

And he's like, oh, that's a stupid logic.

I'm like, okay.

I just quoted for you the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

So your issue is not with me.

It's with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and and the person responded.

Well, they're just telling you what a transcendental argument is the pre supper is using a Circular

argument.

I'm like, but our argument is following the same structure.

So like so so what why is it?

Do people say that we are engaging in circular argument and when you show them the structure they still think

it's different than like Encyclopedia, I mean transcendental arguments aren't like we do it.

We didn't make them up.

Is this something you encounter?

It's very frustrating sometimes.

Yeah, yeah it is and different people put it different ways.

Sure and all you know.

Whenever you're defending whenever you're defending an ultimate standard, there will necessarily be some degree of circularity there.

That's not this inescapable, right but not in the argument.

That's the key.

Not right, right.

It's not circular arguments.

Not it's not the fallacy of begging the question and the main reason I see the difference is because it's not arbitrary.

Yes, I have to presume.

I have to presume laws of logic while defending them.

That's.

That's not fallaciously circular.

It's necessary.

It's rationally necessary and.

Even.

Immanuel Kant argued that it's reasonable to believe something if you would have to assume it even to argue against it.

I mean, I think that's pretty.

I think that's pretty reasonable.

I think that's logical.

So there's nothing arbitrarily circle.

I'm not arbitrarily assuming the thing I'm trying to defend.

That's the difference between what I'm doing and what somebody does when they assume uniformity as the sole basis for

uniformity, right?

And I always try to make the distinction between the premise of an argument.

Pardon and.

Presupposition of an argument.

I am presupposing that the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for say something like knowledge but

in the way that I formulate the argument the Conclusion is not stated in any of the

premises if in fact I happen to present it in a premise premise conclusion.

As you know that people who formulate it different ways.

So it's very interesting you could say that and people just kind of you know, repeat themselves again.

It can be Quite interesting actually, but nevertheless.

Here is my next question and you brought it up when you were alluding to

Rescuing devices.

So can you explain to everyone?

What is a rescuing device and how do these things typically manifest in debates about creation and

evolution and you know?

Christianity and atheism and so forth.

So rescuing device is a Hypothesis that a person generates to protect his worldview from evidence that initially

seems to be contrary to it.

And so I can give any number of examples in my own field of astronomy.

There's quite a lot of evidence that the universe is nowhere near 14 billion years old.

And one of those would be the or at least our solar system is not billions years old the fact that we have Comets for

example comets can't last billions of years.

They orbit far away from the Sun they come.

Comets are made of ice and dirt they go far away from the Sun they come close to the Sun and they whiplash back out when they're close to the Sun

that.

The icy material is vaporized and blown away from the comet.

That's what the comet's tail is.

That's material being depleted from the source the nucleus of the comet.

And so you do the calculation.

We know how much materials released.

We know how big the nucleus is for typical comet.

They're usually a few miles across.

We can do the calculation a typical comet can last about a hundred thousand years.

And of course, it'll depend on the orbital details, but it doesn't last millions of years let alone billions.

And yet we still have comets and so my secular colleagues recognizing this they can do the same math.

I can do they said well.

There must be a comet generator that makes new comets.

And so they proposed what's called the Oort cloud if you ever heard of the Oort cloud.

Because it was named after its inventor Jan Oort who realized this problem and said there must be a big sphere of

potential comets out.

There out beyond where we can detect them.

Orbiting around the Sun and every now and then one of them is sort of thrown into the inner solar system and becomes a brand New comet so as old ones

disintegrate new ones replace them now, there's no evidence of an Oort cloud.

But at the same time I can't disprove it.

That's what makes a good rescuing device.

You can't disprove it, but you can't prove it either and and and.

Anybody who is philosophically astute and clever can always come up with a rescuing device to protect their worldview from

evidence that appears to be contrary.

That's why when it's a worldview debate.

Not that evidence is irrelevant, but you you have to get to.

You have to get to the to some form of the transcendental argument.

You have to ask what are the necessary conditions that would allow us to even have this conversation, right?

Because if you just stick with evidence if you're against somebody who is tenaciously holding to his worldview He will always be able to

come up with a rescuing device.

Mm -hmm, and you don't have to prove it.

You just have to say it's possible.

Yes.

Yeah, that's right.

I debated an atheist once At somewhere on YouTube where he said that I can grant you

that Jesus rose from the dead but that doesn't prove that God is omnipotent and.

And that is interesting because because this is this goes to show that in some some unbelievers I think

really do lack the capacity to think in broad worldview categories.

They always talk about thing things in isolation as though my position as a Christian is that

Jesus was raised from the dead and not that he was raised from the dead by the omnipotent God who raised him.

I mean there they're one in the they're together, right?

A lot of people will think of things in kind of a blockhouse piece by piece fashion.

I think this is why it's important just what you emphasize in your work and in the work of Vant Hill and someone like dr Bonds and

the importance of worldview seeing people as walking worldviews and seeing our own position as as A

worldview in terms of which everything that we believe is connected.

I think that's so vitally important.

It's interesting.

You mentioned that too because there's a there's a friend of mine.

He's a good guy.

He's a real solid creationist, but he's not as presuppositional as I'd like him to be.

Okay I won't mention who it is, but he's a good guy.

And he was telling me, you know, he was saying but you know all this stuff about all this philosophy and stuff.

Isn't there just some evidence that's powerful evidence for Christianity?

Isn't the resurrection of Christ proof of Christianity?

I said, yes.

It is in the Christian worldview.

Because you see if somebody doesn't accept that only God can raise the dead they could accept that Christ was raised from the dead.

And still reject the Christian worldview and you just gave an example of that.

So that was a real exam.

People think all that's ridiculous.

That was a real example in a debate the thing people watch and everything.

It was that people say this if they are like you said before philosophically tenacious and are trying to be consistent.

Yeah, it's it's it.

Yeah, okay, it happens.

So now how should Christians respond when a skeptic appeals to a rescuing device?

I mean you're not saying that it's bad to appeal to a rescuing device because I think you admit that Christians have rescuing

devices as well.

So, how do we break the tie so to speak between the Christian using the rescuing device and the non

-christian using the resting rescuing device.

You have to get to the worldview.

You have to say, okay, that's that's an interesting possibility.

I admit I can't disprove.

I can't disprove that there's an or cloud.

I can't.

I don't think there's any good evidence for it, but I can't disprove it.

So the question is which of our worldviews would make it possible for us to have this conversation.

Which which of our worldviews would make?

Science possible.

We both believe in induction we both believe that there's uniformity in nature by which we do science.

Which of our worldviews can make sense of that and that's where I've got him.

And and most people haven't thought that through like I said, most scientists take for granted That there's uniformity in nature

that our senses are reliable.

They haven't bothered to think through.

Many of them don't even think it's important.

Who cares whether we can philosophically justify that right thing is I can actually do science.

Is it important to be rational?

It isn't.

Is it important for you to have good reasons for what you believe and.

Well, yeah.

Well, then you need to have a good reason for your confidence in the scientific method.

Well, it works.

Well, you're assuming uniformity.

It's worked in the past.

You're assuming that it's gonna work in the future.

But that I'm asking you how do you know that that principle is basically true?

Well, I want you to I want you to address this.

Let's I apologize for interrupting I I hear this all the time as though this is a response and I know even

dr. Bonson That's a long time ago yet He addressed these things and

people are responding to this as though this is a good response.

People say I don't need your God to Do science.

You don't need God to do science.

We're doing it Like we're already doing it.

So look and I don't need your God.

How would you respond to that a.

Couple things.

First of all, you do need God to do it because he's holding the atoms of your body together.

Oh, yeah, secondly, I'm not claiming that you have to profess a belief in God to do science.

I'm saying that God must exist and must be the way he is according to Scripture in order for you to do science.

And you Have yet to refute that so that the fact that you can do science doesn't prove your position.

It proves mine.

Because I've just said the Christian worldviews the only worldview that can make sense of your ability to do science.

Since you said I can Do science I've said therefore the Christian worldviews true.

So you haven't demonstrated the point that you've thought.

You've demonstrated.

You demonstrated my point unless you can show me Logically how it would be possible to justify our

expectation in uniformity reliability of census apart from the biblical God.

And you haven't been able.

To do that.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, dr Lyle, I don't need your God for logic because logic is a language we develop to

describe reality.

So I walk in the forest and I observe one acorn and then I observe another

acorn.

And then I reason that the acorn is what it is.

And the other acorn is what it is and I put them together and lo and behold I have two acorn.

I don't need your God to understand the law of identity the law of non -contradiction the law of excluded middle.

And so there you go.

I'm doing logic.

I'm doing reason.

I'm engaging in reasoning and I do not profess your God.

How would you interact with that?

Oh, there's so many ways I could answer that one of them I could ask.

I could ask.

How do you know that contradictions are always false you claim?

It's based on your observations, but your observations of this universe are very Limited.

I mean, I'm an astronomer.

I've observed a lot more the universe than you have.

So, you know, have you ever been to Mars?

Oh, you're not been to Mars.

And how do you know contradictions can't be true on Mars?

How do you know that?

Well, it's true by definition those it's true.

It's just it's just the nature of the world.

You just told me it was based on your observations of the world that you've concluded that based on your observations.

But your observations are limited to earth and to a very small fraction of the earth.

So, how do you know that they would work on Mars?

So so if the person says logic is Language that we use to describe

reality.

So now you're saying that that's a problem because to describe a reality We need to encounter reality and we haven't empirically encountered all

of reality and therefore we cannot make a universal application.

You could never get to any universal that way.

I got you never get because all you have is a sequence of particulars and even there you're making a lot of assumptions that your Senses are reliable and so on

but yeah, you could never get to any universal that way.

Well, you could never say I know that contradictions are always false.

What if someone says the universe exists and it's not not existing.

So there you go.

There's the law of non -contradiction.

I mean, it's true the universe exists and it's not not existing or I exist and there's nothing making me not exist.

You know, so therefore, you know, you can develop the you know I guess he's describing reality in that case and then drawing the

conclusion.

This is where you can this is how you can get logic.

How would you respond to that?

That's a hasty generalization fallacy.

You've given me two particulars and you've assumed the universal from that.

I want to know how you get to that universal from those two particulars.

Okay, what if they say it's it's analytically true you know if you get analytic and synthetic distinctions

and and I know I'm not getting too abstract because people who listen to this will Kind of be familiar with these categories, but something is

true by definition.

It's just true by definition or it's a presupposition.

I don't have to reason about it.

I just start with it because from that starting point I can build the rest of my world view.

So then you're getting into kind of a foundational philosophy.

Foundationalist philosophy and then I'm gonna say what about people who disagree with you?

What about people who say that no contradictions can be true in some instances?

I mean, how could you argue against that if you're just assuming it arbitrarily?

Sure.

Sure.

Yeah.

All right.

Okay, so I have one more question for you.

Sorry, I was throwing those out because I kind of hear those I'm trying to think of try to throw a bone to like the Comment section and people I hear you.

I hear you trying to throw them out there and have you grappled some of them.

Someone says here How do you address the claim that appealing to the Bible is the ultimate standard in your argument is

arbitrary or no different from other?

Religion religious claims to authority so, you know, it let's say for example Transcendental argument

right if knowledge is possible.

The Christian worldview is true knowledge is possible therefore the Christian worldview is true or If

knowledge is possible Islam is true knowledge is possible Therefore Islam is true or and then fill in the blank.

You can replace it with anything.

How would you respond to that?

They're both valid but only the first is sound because It's not just that I'm making the claim that the

Christian worldview makes knowledge possible.

I'm giving illustrations of that and I'm and I can also give illustrations while other worldviews fail to

do that.

And so You know, we have the Christian God who's revealed himself God in the Christian worldview truth.

Is that which corresponds to the mind of God?

Okay.

How do I know truth by revelation?

God has given some truth to me.

So that that checks that makes it what are some of the specific ways sensory experience?

God's law written on our heart would be an example of knowledge that God has imparted directly to me.

God's Word is an example of that.

So these are all things I can have knowledge.

I can have truth.

I can do science because we have uniformity because God is beyond time and he's promised that the future will be like the past in Terms of basic

cycles Genesis 822.

I can point to specific instances in Scripture where I have a basis a Rational basis for the

things that we all take for granted for knowledge.

I have a basis for it and I would argue the Muslim can't do that consistently.

Any other worldview you can think of can't do that consistently.

And so I'm not just I'm not just making an arbitrary claim.

I'm illustrating and I'm giving some examples of how the Christian worldview makes knowledge possible.

And I'm challenging my my opponent to do that with his professed worldview.

Whatever it is, and I claim that if it's not Christianity, he won't be able to do it, right?

I am I ran this by a while back by dr. James Anderson and

He said and I use this all the time because it's true.

I mean.

This is not a deficiency of a presuppositional argument or transcendental argument that you can plug in any worldview

in that Category like if knowledge is possible Hinduism is true.

Like it's not a deficiency in our approach that you can plug in any view.

That's true.

Anyone could use a transcendental argument.

The question is this is what dr. Anderson pointed out.

Not every worldview can pay the bills on the claim.

And so what you pointed out, we're not making a bare authority claim.

We actually are arguing that the Christian worldview has say the metaphysical picture or the

ontology that is necessary for knowledge to be possible or the epistemology and the Metaphysic

put together that allows the Christian to have a justification for knowledge and so forth.

It's not a simple authority claim, which I think a lot of people misconstrue.

So, all right.

Well, this has been excellent.

I think this is I think there's gonna be super helpful for people in terms of evolution.

What advice can you give to the listeners if evolute because this is not everyone's emphasis.

I mean it is still a very popular kind of interaction between Christian non -christian.

You have Christians and Christians who affirm evolution and things like that.

What kind of evidence evidence?

What kind of advice pardon would you give to believers who want to defend?

Biblical creation and.

What what advice can you give them to navigate those kinds of discussions both with Christians who affirm

evolution and unbelievers who affirm evolution.

With Christians, I would sir well with both I would start with the Bible but with Christians the.

The person who you're helping ought to take that seriously.

It ought to have a lot of weight with them.

Sure with the evolutionists who is not a Christian.

You'll have to do a little more work you'll have to show that their worldview is is deficient and that the the Bible

provides the necessary preconditions that they need to be able to do their science and to have confidence in it.

I do think it's helpful to know a little bit about the specific lines of scientific evidence that that we talked about today with with

Birds and dinosaurs and things like that.

I think it's helpful to know about that.

I think if you don't know that and again, I'm saying this as a hardcore presuppositionalist if you don't know any of that.

Sometimes people will say oh, you know, you're just getting all very philosophical and that's all very interesting.

But what about the hard data?

I think it's helpful to know that.

Yes, there are scientists out there.

We're familiar with the hard data.

I I'm not an expert in dinosaurs.

I know people who are.

I know Tim Clary personally.

He's a dinosaur expert.

I know Marcus Ross who is a dinosaur expert.

I know Dave Menton who is an anatomy expert.

He passed away recently, but I've learned a lot from them.

There are experts in these fields learn from them, but ultimately recognize that it's a worldview

issue.

It is a worldview issue and the reason that they're evolutionists and they're and they're intelligent people.

I'm not the kind of person that makes fun.

Some some creationists do this.

They'll make fun of evolutionists as if they're stupid.

They're not stupid.

They have a worldview that is wrong.

And.

Yeah, they have a worldview that's wrong and that's true of any non -believer.

Any person who's not a Christian has a worldview that is Wrong.

It needs to be challenged and to the extent and we Christians sometimes we get off on issues, too.

And I want I want my brothers and sisters in Christ to come and correct me and say dr Lau you're wrong about this because here's what the scripture say and

I've had people do that and I appreciate it, right?

I mean a person who is gonna be wise at some point needs to accept correction and so on.

So study the scriptures.

Certainly.

Check out if you don't mind.

Eli all shamelessly promote the website that biblical science institute Dot -com.

Biblical science institute dot -com all the resources there to help you to defend the faith.

Effectively.

And I I tend to focus in on a lot of the scientific evidence because I'm a scientist I find that interesting.

But ultimately it comes down to a worldview issue and the Bible gives you the correct worldview that makes science possible

and no other.

Worldview will do that.

Now you you kind of read my mind.

I was literally I literally had your website Up in front of me right here just to give people a

brief taste.

You've covered issues again.

It's the biblical science Institute.

You've covered issues relating to astronomy education physics geology

origins dinosaurs specifically engaging with specific criticisms of your perspective logic.

Presuppositional methodologies a lot of resources at the biblical Institute.

So I highly recommend folks check that out now if I can give a shameless plug not only for dr Lyle's

books the ultimate proof of creation.

And his text on logic and of course all of his other materials.

I mean, they're excellent.

There's two other books that I'd like to kind of bring to people's attention.

There was recently kind of released this book here.

It's called every believer confident apologetics for the ordinary Christian by Mark Farnham.

I actually wrote an endorsement for the book here in the back and I've said that it is one of the best.

Introductions to presuppositional apologetics today and what I mean by that is not to diminish of course, dr Lyle's own work, which

I highly recommend but this is like very very very very beginners like man I really want to know

presuppositional apologetics.

But I'm not a philosophy guy.

I need kind of straightforward practical non -technical.

There are many books like that, but this one is super super helpful.

Another one.

I want to bring to folks attention if you are more on the intermediate and expert level.

Is this book published by American vision?

And I'm not sure if folks can see that.

I'm trying to put it straight in front of the camera.

I can't see but it's the it's called the objective proof for Christianity the presuppositional ism of Cornelius van Til

and Greg Bonson.

And it is pretty much the transcription of dr. Bonson's lectures on transcendental arguments.

It was edited by my friend Joshua pillows, and he wrote an appendix here entitled answering

the transcendental criticisms of van Til's tag.

So if you really want to get into the details, I highly recommend this specific book.

So dr Lyle, is there any last words you'd like to leave with the listeners before we kind of close

things out here?

I'll just encourage people that you can have confidence in God's Word.

I I run into a lot of people that when there's some new scientific discovery They they become sort of panicky as

if well, you know, this is finally going to disprove God's Word.

That person is not thinking presupposition.

You can have confidence in God's Word because it's what makes science possible.

And so keep in mind whenever there's a new scientific discovery some new claim comes out.

You know, maybe maybe they'll find a feather an actual feather dinosaur at some point.

We haven't found that yet.

But first of all, that wouldn't be devastating to to creation at all.

Secondly, they could not have made the discovery if the Bible were not true because the tools they they use the way

they're using their Rationality only makes sense.

In a Christian worldview every scientific discovery owes its origin owes its discovery to

the Bible.

Yeah, I was reading a comment on one of the videos.

Someone said science has no presuppositions and I'm.

Just it's an interesting presupposition.

That's right.

So always examine things obviously.

Be honest if you don't know an answer to a question like say hey, man, that's a great point.

I don't know.

So don't be afraid to learn and to be corrected and things like that and just be faithful to God's Word and

and trust and go so I'm very thankful for Men, like Jason Lyle and others

who help equip believers to engage with unbelieving thought and so I want to encourage you guys A lot of

materials out there get your hands on them YouTube channels like this websites and books that Dr. Lyle has put out.

There's just a lot of resources out there and so folks you need to get your hands on that and just jump into those

discussions and honor Christ in the way that you.

Conduct yourself and put forth an apologetic that dr. Lyle and myself would argue is irrefutable.

It really is not listening to objections and arguments to counter.

So what we've been arguing here.

They are terrible.

They're not they're they're not only but not good but even when they present the good stuff Christianity has the

answers.

So I want to encourage folks in that.

Well, dr. Lyle.

Thank you so much for coming on with me again.

I just appreciate you as a brother.

You are you have been so kind to give me your time on multiple occasions and you've just been a blessing to me.

So thank you so much for that for everyone else for everyone else until next time guys.

Take care.

God bless.

Bye.

Bye.