Widespread Apeman Fraud Detected in Museums

You know, I've never even met Andrew in person. The one thing I've picked up on is everybody picks on the man.

And so here's my take. Oh, that's not true. He picks on everybody else. No, no. See, I think he's an innocent victim of just ruthless people who hardly judge him.

He just seems to me so innocent. I don't know. I need to meet him to find out. But yeah, that's just my impression.

He'll have to tell me whether I'm right or not. That's hilarious. Wow. I don't trust Chris's opinion on it.

I mean... This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rippaport.

We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your most challenging questions that you have about God and the

Bible. As I say every week, we can answer any question that you have about God and the

Bible. And if you doubt that, well, go to ApologeticsLive .com. You just scroll down till you see a little

StreamYard duck icon. Click on that. Make sure you give your browser use or allow it to use your microphone and camera.

Join us. Ask us any question, most challenging question. I just want you to remember one thing.

I don't know is a perfectly good answer. So I agree with Israel Wayne there is that people pick on me.

It's not that I'm just the innocent person. I never pick on anyone, never.

But today's topic, so we're going to do things a bit different because my co -host isn't here yet as he's putting his kids to bed.

So we usually do an in the news section. We may pick that up at the end. If there's time at the end, we had a, some of you remember back in October, we had a gentleman who joined, wanted to try to defend gay

Christianity. And well, to say he did a poor job would be an understatement, but he blames us for him doing a poor job.

And so he sent a response that he had made public and we may try to cover that at the end, along with some of the in the news segment.

But first what we're going to do is we're going to talk about some widespread frauds that can be detected in the museums.

Well, I know you go to a museum to learn. I get it. You go and you feel that I'm going to learn a lot.

I'm going to gain information and it's going to always say true things, right?

Wait, no, no. You don't think that? Well, some of you don't, but many think that if it's in a museum, it must be true.

And there are ways to detect that the museums are trying to present frauds.

So I'm going to invite in Dr. Carl Wiener, and if you wouldn't mind just introducing yourself to the audience, because I don't know how many folks know who you are and your background, and if you could give a little bit of an insight into your ministry and what you do, and then just in the beginning, and I will come back to this at the end, is how people can get a hold of you.

Because the reality is people won't go searching you now. They're going to wait till the end and go, man, this guy's really smart.

I've got to find out more about him. And so we'll give you that at the end too. Well, my name is

Dr. Carl Wiener, W -E -R -N -E -R, and it's nice to be here. And thanks for the great opportunity to meet with you and your guests.

And I am looking for opportunities to share probably the biggest science story and the biggest news story for the last 20, 30 years.

And in a minute, I'm going to get to this, that we have uncovered widespread fraud in the field of human evolution.

But just to give you a background so you have some idea of who

I am and why I did this, I'm a physician and I am a science guy.

When I was in high school, I was a science geek. I'm probably the only person

I know that had his own animal lab at the University of Missouri while I was in high school.

That's what I would do on my days off in the afternoons. I was doing research on food chemicals.

And I did, I got a four -year all -science scholarship for that.

And I also got accepted to medical school at age 18. And it was an accelerated medical school.

So I was kind of the science geek that was living next door to you.

And the whole reason that I'm here tonight started with a dinner over pizza while in medical school by my medical school classmate.

I was 19. He was 19. And he asked me three questions that started me on this quest, this journey, and actually turned my life around.

You know, I grew up in a fantastic home, fantastic parents, a good church, but the church never emphasized the inerrancy of the

Bible. And there was no really intention to teach me that creation was true.

And so when I got to college and medical school, there was a sense that evolution was true from what my professors were teaching me about evolution.

And I had no reason not to believe them. I would never been told how to defend against this.

And I believed in evolution. My life started sliding. I was actually kind of miserable by my second year of medical school.

I shouldn't have been. You know, I had the world by the tail, you know. But I had all the freedom in the world, but I was more or less a prisoner.

I just couldn't find that happiness I was looking for. Then my sophomore year, a classmate of mine took me out for pizza one night at Minsky's pizza parlor in Kansas City there on Main Street.

And he asked me three questions that flipped me from believing in evolution to realizing, no, there's something wrong here.

The three questions he asked me was, Carl, you believe in the natural origin of the universe, the

Big Bang, right? And I said, yes. And he said, well, how do you explain where matter comes from?

Because you know, Carl, that as well as I do, he said that the laws of physics tell you that matter like atoms, hydrogen, helium does not form from nothing.

So how could you get the matter for creating the universe if matter doesn't form naturally under any circumstance?

And you know, I knew that law of physics. I knew the Big Bang, but I never put them together.

And he was completely right. That would imply that there was a God that created the universe.

His second question is, Carl, you believe that life began in a primordial soup billions of years ago and that lightning struck this primordial soup and that the first form of life formed.

But Carl, how could that possibly be? Because you know, as well as I see, we were both in biochemistry class at that time.

You know, as well as I, that DNA doesn't form naturally under any circumstance.

And just like mixing chemicals, you can't mix chemicals and get DNA. And yet DNA is in all living things.

So how could life begin if there's no way to get to DNA? And the same is true for proteins and enzymes and RNA and all these other things.

And I hadn't thought of that either. I knew what he was saying was correct. But that would imply that the universe and life itself didn't form naturally.

And then his third question was about the fossil record. He said, Carl, how do you explain the problems with the fossil record in light of evolution?

I said, well, what problems are there? I had no idea that there were problems. And he said, the museums are full of fossils.

And right now, the number of museum fossils is 1 billion, B -I -L, billion, thousand museums, a million fossils each.

He said, even though they have this plethora of fossils, great numbers of fossils.

In fact, they have so many fossils, they don't want you to bring any new fossils to the museum unless there's something special. Why can't you see evolution in the fossils?

In other words, all the big groups just pop onto the planet. that there's no ancestors for the phyla, like the arthropods and the vertebrates.

They just suddenly appear. How could that be? And you know what? I couldn't answer one of those questions.

And I was a 4 .0 in medical school. I was a 4 .0 undergrad. I was a biology major.

I was there on a full ride science scholarship, and I couldn't answer any one of these most simple questions.

And I realized at that point that I had been duped, but I didn't know what to do with this because how would you explain dinosaurs?

How would you explain millions of years? How would you explain, you know, the origin of the universe?

Dah, dah, dah. So I just thought about those questions, but they moved me deep in the heart.

And I just thought about it. I still had a career as a physician. I still had to pay off my debts, you know?

So I continued to go through medical school. I continued then to be a physician, and I worked on it for 18 years to try to understand how evolution or creation, how it all fit together with this

God that I realized exists at this point. And I couldn't get the answers I wanted,

Andrew. So what I did was very unusual. I know you'll think this is unusual, but I talked my wife into forming a television production company, and this was in 1997, for the sole purpose that we would do interviews with the fossil experts, the dinosaur experts, the human evolution experts, and we would conduct interviews.

I could kind of probe, look at the fossils, try to resolve my issues.

And it was supposed to be a one -year deal, and it ended up being a 27 -year deal, 1997 through just present.

And at the end, I realized that evolution didn't occur. That's one.

Number two, and the second book that we produced was that I realized that during the time of the dinosaurs, there were modern -appearing animals, and that resolved a lot for me when

I realized that the ducks live with the dinosaurs, the boa constrictors, the box turtles, the possums, the hedgehogs, they just didn't display them.

And so that solved a lot. And the third thing I collected in these 27 years of interview, and again, this is gonna be hard to believe, but I'm gonna show it to you, is that there is widespread fraud in the field of human evolution.

And I mean widespread. And so widespread, you can go into any natural history museum today, and I could walk you through and say, this one is a fraud, this one is fraud -based, this is a fraud, this is an altered fossil.

And nobody knows this, except the few people that have heard me talk so far, the scientists aren't aware of this, the college professors who teach anthropology and human evolution aren't aware of these facts, and they are so stunning, and there's so many, that this essentially collapses the theory of human evolution.

And if you like, I'd like to go through and start showing you some of these examples of the fossil frauds in the field of human evolution, and when you see them, you will say,

I think you'll agree with me, these are undeniable, and these are many, and these are so common, they're the big ones, the big animals that you would think are the big proofs for human evolution.

And it's not just currently, it goes back to the beginnings of the theory of human evolution, and the frauds start popping out around the year 1880, 1885, and they go forward all the way to the fossils that are in the museum.

So I'm actually gonna cover not only the ones that are in the museums solely, but I wanna show you some of the others that have got us to this point, and to show you, oh my gosh, how did we all miss this?

So it's interesting because, Darwin had argued that the fossil evidence would bear out his theory of evolution.

And his argument back then was, we just don't have enough fossils to prove this out.

That's right. That's actually a decent argument to make while you're alive, and there's no evidence to support it, because by the time you're dead, right, either everyone's rejected everything he said or not, but you don't know the difference.

And so he put a lot of weight in fossil evidence. And it is interesting you say that, yeah, back in the 1800s after he lived, people spent a lot of time looking for fossils, because the more fossils we could find, the more we could prove

Darwin was right. That is correct. That is a correct assessment of what happened.

Yeah, and yet, the more we find those fossils, I think the less we find that Darwin's right, the more it supports creation.

I mean, one of the things, the more fossils we find is, we still don't find transitional fossils. The missing links are still missing.

That is absolutely correct. And for example, in our second, our first book, we went around and interviewed the specialists in each of these fields where the fossils were found.

For example, we interviewed the dinosaur experts, and they told us that 100 ,000 dinosaurs, individual dinosaurs had been found.

Now, only about 3 ,000 of them were skeletons, but there was 97 ,000 other dinosaur bones, onesies or twosies that had been found.

But that's a heck of a lot of dinosaurs, 100 ,000 dinosaurs, and yet the world's greatest expert in dinosaur evolution,

Dr. David Weishample, told us on camera that there was not a single ancestor for any of the dinosaur species, not a single ancestor for any of the dinosaur species.

And that is essentially what the fossil record looks like, with a few exceptions, which turned out to be frauds.

So before we start with that, someone is asking whether you have been on Donnie's YouTube channel,

Standing for Truth. They said he has a lot of discussions on evolution. Have you been on Standing for Truth?

No, but I would love to be invited, or someone could hook me up, or this person could hook me up, because I am trying to reach as many people as I can with this message.

So Dee, if you know who Donnie is of Standing for Truth, if you could just email me at info at strivingforeternity .com,

and shoot me that contact information, I'll get it to Dr. Carl, and we'll see if we can set that up.

And let me know if he's, when you say Standing for Truth discusses evolution, if he's for or against evolution, that would be helpful.

I would be. Well, I'm not sure if he's going in friendly territory or not. I'd be happy to go on to pro -evolution site, as long as they're not rude.

No, I'd be happy to share this with everyone. All right, so I know you had a presentation with some things that sometimes a picture makes it easier.

And for those who are listening with the audio podcast, which I know most of you are, if you want to see, you're gonna need to go to the website, go to strivingforeternity .org

YouTube channel. And so just go to YouTube, search for Striving Fraternity, and dig that up.

And that way we could, you could watch, see any things, because I think sometimes the slides,

Carl's gonna try and talk through them, but yeah, sometimes you need to see a picture. So, and as he's pulling the slides up,

I'll just say we were not sure whether we were gonna be able to do this show today.

Carl called me up, goes, ah, my computer's not working in a panic. And he went to his backup computer, and that wasn't working.

And so he ran to the Apple store, and they fixed it pretty quickly for him. And so, yeah, that's always a good thing.

And so Dee says that Donnie is a Christian and is a young earth creationist. All right.

So I don't see your slides popping up yet. Hold on just a second. Okay, well, one second is up, so you needed more than one second.

Exactly. Well, let me do this while you're pulling that up, and let me see if there's anything.

Let me look at any comments. All right, John says, yes, pictures would help me.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what Carl has found. Ape man fraud evidence.

So, okay. Okay, here we go. I see your slides. I'll pull those up. There we go. So just for everybody,

I have written four books. The first one was Evolution, a Grand Experiment. And that looked at the fossil record where we interviewed scientists about the fossils.

And this is just one chapter, the dinosaur chapter. This chart shows how dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor.

But when we asked the scientists to put in the numbers onto the chart, although you have these thousands and thousands of dinosaurs on the right, like Tyrannosaurus and sauropods and Ceratopsians, there was not any fossils on the chart lines where you thought they were animals.

You know, they put the lines on the charts in the museums. You just will assume that there's fossils there, but there aren't.

And so that's how the whole book is laid out, one animal group at a time. The second book

I did was called Living Fossils. And that was my prediction that if creation was true and if all the animals and plants and humans and dogs all live together, and then they got mixed up in a flood and then dinosaurs went extinct, you should find some animals that are modern next to the dinosaurs.

And in the book and video, Living Fossils, we simply compared the fossils that were found next to a dinosaur, like this fossil fern or redwood.

It's a fossil redwood. And then we placed the fossil that was found next to a dinosaur next to the modern plant or animal.

And you can see, Andrew, that there's no difference between a modern dawn redwood tree and this fossil dawn redwood.

Same way with the cones. There's no difference between the fossil cone and the modern cone.

And we just went through group after group after group, like this is the modern nautilus at the top and below it is a fossil nautilus that was found next to the dinosaurs.

And you'd say, well, gosh, that looks like the same animal, but they changed the name of the fossil.

So you would never know it was the same animal. And then if you were to cut these fossils in half and look at the inside, here's the modern nautilus over here on the right and the nautilus shellfish.

And you can see it looks exactly like the inside of a fossil nautilus that was found next to the dinosaurs.

And we found examples of all the major groups of animals and plants next to the dinosaurs.

We didn't find all of them, but we found mammals like possums and hedgehogs. We found fossils of birds that were modern next to the dinosaurs like ducks and loons and avocets.

All the reptile groups were represented, the plant groups were represented, et cetera, et cetera. Then I wrote this book called

Untold Stories of Human Evolution, which this first book, it's volume three in the series, is basically all the ape men that were accidentally, inadvertently created out of mammals that weren't primates.

In other words, there were five ape men, these ape men on the left here, the

Libyan ape man, the Orsi man, the Nebraska man, Australopithecus prometheus, and the

Orsi man. These ape men in this book, and they're shown here on the left, were made out of these mammals.

These ape men were made out of dolphin bones, cat bones, pig bones, hippo bones, donkey bones, bovid bones, dog bones, horse bones, and raccoon bones.

It's hard to imagine that a scientist could take a raccoon leg bone and say it was an ape man, especially if he's a trained anthropologist, but that is the reality.

Scientists named this fossil Tetraparthoma argentinus and said it was an ape man that lived in Argentina, but it was actually a raccoon bone.

So how do they do that? Just for folks who are listening, because we're seeing all the pictures on the left of different depictions of something that's between an ape and a man.

Yep, the ape man. You look at the, like a raccoon, it doesn't look anything like a human.

The pig I know, Nebraska man was, I believe it was the one where it was from one pig tooth.

Yep. They developed the whole thing. How did they do this? Because for people who are hearing it, who may not realize, because we think of when we see the skeletons, it looks like, oh, they have the whole skeleton.

How do they take like the skeleton of a raccoon to create an ape man? Yeah, so they don't take the full skeleton.

And in fact, an evolution scientist, his best friend is just a partial skeleton.

And the less of the skeleton he has, the more he can conjecture that it was an ape man. For example, this one at the top here, the

Libyan ape man, that red collarbone, they thought they had found the red, I mean, this collarbone of this ape man found in Libya.

In fact, it was the rib of this dolphin. So the all they had is a rib and they made this entire drawing and they took the rib thinking it was a collarbone and then came up with this entire drawing.

That is one of the problems in this field. There is so much creativity in a bad way.

They just, there's no limits. If you just have a little bone, you can make up an ape man. And that is an entire book that I made here of just mammals, dog bones, horse bones, donkey bones, pig teeth that were created into ape man.

It's a fascinating read. It's not the point of the discussion tonight. But I love it. It is helpful for folks to realize that when they see this stuff, they're, you know,

I love to go into museums. I have a loud voice, so it carries.

And so it's an advantage when you're in a museum and I'll see like Lucy and I'll read out loud their description of Lucy and how they know that this was, you know, something evolutionary between ape and man because of its pelvis.

And it describes the bones. And then I like to point out, notice the bones that they say that it's all dependent on are missing.

Those aren't original. And I would just like to tease the audience here at this point is

Dr. I told you I had found 150 frauds. Dr. Johansson's Lucy was three of these frauds and I'm gonna do his three frauds which you've never heard tonight and towards the end here.

So hang on to your seat because we're gonna get to the frauds in just a minute, huh?

The second book I wrote on human evolution is this one is called Nine Categories of Overturned Ape Men.

And basically I counted how many ape men had been overturned.

And that number is 232 species names. And 232 species of ape men turned out to be not ape men.

And I was fascinated by that. Like, what did they turn out to be? This isn't a fraud thing yet.

This is just my thinking, the pre -work. And what did those 232 species of ape men turn out to be?

Well, there was so many I had to group them into nine categories. Like some of the ape men, especially

Raymond Darts turned out to be monkey bones. Some of the ape men like Pleopithecus turned out to be just straight ape bones.

Some of the ape men turned out to be straight humans that lived during the ice age, but they're just purely humans.

And then some of the ape men were just ordinary humans that had recently been buried just a couple hundred years old.

And when the scientists dug up a modern skeleton, you know, like Aunt Jane or Uncle Billy or whatever, they thought they had found an ape man, which again speaks poorly of their science.

And then other categories of ape men, there was one that was made out of a reptile. There was a category of ape men that were fossils that had been altered, et cetera, et cetera.

You know what, up to this point, this was like four years ago, I did not realize that I had 150 ape men, 150 frauds in human evolution.

I wasn't paying attention, but as I wrote the back cover material for this book,

I wrote this sentence that during the interviews for this book, which is volume four, that there were several instances of fraud that were revealed by the scientists themselves.

And I thought to myself, you know, Carl, that's kind of a weak sentence to put on the back cover of a book.

You need to count them up and how many frauds you ran across during these interviews.

Because we had, you know, we interviewed 43 scientists all over the world,

Africa, Europe, Australia, South America, and all throughout North America. And all these interviews were typed out.

You know, some of them were 40 page interviews that lasted hours.

And I said, okay, I'll start counting them. And I started counting them. And this is when you can tell when you've found a scientific truth, when it jumps off the page and slaps you.

And I started counting, okay, there's one there for Dr. Dar, there's one here for Dr. Brain, there's one here for Dr.

Johansson. It was two here, four here, five here, nine, four, one third, I was over 100.

Then all of a sudden I ended up, I said, oh my gosh, there was 150 frauds.

And this is newsworthy. This is the most important thing you're gonna hear this century.

And this is gonna alter the evolution creation debate. It is gonna be the beginning of the end of this whole evolution scam.

Because this means that, you know, human evolution was the linchpin that, well, the fossils for dinosaurs don't show dinosaur evolution.

And the fossils for bats don't show bat evolution. And the fossils for seal don't show seal evolution.

But we have all these ape men, hundreds of ape men. But when you find out that 232 have been overturned and that there's 150 frauds in human evolution, the entire theory of human evolution collapses before your eyes.

And it's just a few little mop -up operations you have to do. And so this is so incredible.

Everybody needs to, if you're just listening to this on the podcast, you need to come back and watch the video on his

YouTube channel to watch these pictures. Because I wouldn't believe me if somebody was speaking this way.

I certainly wouldn't believe me. But once you see these photos, you're gonna believe me. And this is as vetted as you're gonna ever see because our bibliography for this, it's the volume five on this series, is 432 pages.

The bibliography is 432 pages. I'm not pulling these facts and these pictures just out of thin air.

This is all material that we investigated that nobody, most people have not figured out.

And so if you don't mind. Yeah, so Carl, before you go on, let me do one thing. You stopped sharing, probably accidentally.

But D is asking, I missed the info on your website. Not sure if I did it right. So I had searched it and put this up here.

Well, he's pulling up. It's called thegrandexperiment .com.

And so that's up on screen for those folks who wanna look for that. But I will have it in the show notes of the podcast, thegrandexperiment .com.

So that is the website to get, well, all the information, get his books, which

I would recommend you do. Trying to see, I know I have one of yours, but I'm trying to look so I can just kind of peek over here and see some of them.

But that's my, can't find which one I have of yours. I know

I have one of your four volumes there. Am I sharing the screen yet?

Yeah, there we go. Okay, good. And Andrew, would you please help me if I lose screen sharing?

Because sometimes I do and I don't realize. Just cut me off and let me work on it because my computer can sometimes lose the screen share.

Yep, not a problem. I never want my audience to lose what's going on.

I want them to stay attentive. Here's the first ape man that's in museums that is a complete fraud.

And this is called Tumai. Now, most people don't know Tumai, but it's the latest and greatest ape man.

And here is a cover of Time Magazine and the cover of Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world.

From 2002 with this ape man called Tumai on the cover.

And this is supposed to be a 7 million year old ape man. It's supposed to walk upright, even though it looks kind of like an ape.

And I want you to pay attention to the facts, his four facts that I'm gonna lay out here because they're all gonna be frauds.

But the facts are, one, he found this fossil skull embedded in rock and he had to dig it out, okay?

Number two, when he dated the rock layer, the rock layer dated to be 7 million years old.

So he knew it was a 7 million year old ape man and because it came from that rock layer.

Number three, he made the point that the skull was the only bone found at the site.

There was no other bones from this animal found. No other bones were found of this animal at the dig site.

And four, he said the hole at the bottom of the skull where the spinal cord enters, that's called the frame and magnum, the hole wasn't in back like an ape, but the hole was in the center like a human.

And so those were the facts of the case. And he said, because the spinal cord hole or the frame and magnum it's also called, is in the human position, that means that this creature walked upright.

The problem is, is that this scientist alienated his colleague and his colleague,

Dr. Alain Bouvillon, who I interviewed, said this whole story is made up.

And he was upset that he got sidelined in this project. And he shared the pictures that he took the day that the fossil was found.

In fact, Dr. Alain Bouvillon, who we interviewed, was there when it was found.

And the scientist who's promoting the fossil, Dr. Michelle Brunet from Paris, wasn't even in the country at the time.

Dr. Bouvillon took this picture of Tumai on the day of discovery.

This was taken hours after it was found. And this was how it was found. Here's the skull. And you'll see, it is not in rock layer.

It's laying on top of the sand. This is in Chad, Northern Africa, and it's in the

Jura desert. And most of the fossils you find there are just laying on the sand. He did not have to dig it out of rock.

It was laying on top of the sand. And Dr. Bouvillon's point was, you can't date something that's just laying on top of sand.

You don't know what rock layer it might've come from, how many miles it got, how many miles it traveled to get there.

You see, even in the desert, the Jura desert, there are these flash floods, seasonal flash floods, where rivers form, bones get moved around.

There's torrential winds. That move bones around. Animals around there are like dromedaries, so they can move bones around.

And so there's no way to know the date of this fossil, even though he claimed it was the oldest ape man ever found.

And let me ask this, does he get paid, or get notoriety, or get published if he says what everyone else is saying?

Or does he get all of those things if he discovers something no one else has discovered? He gets to be famous in 20 seconds and travel around with champagne glasses and be hosted everywhere if he says he found a new ape man.

That's all you have to say. If you say you found a new ape man, and if you say it's the oldest ape man, then you are the king of the pile.

And you'd knock out even Dr. Johansson. Now he is a king. And you get

UNESCO involved, you get money coming in, you get movies made by saying he had found an ape man, a new ape man, and saying it was the oldest.

He was the king, starting in 2001 when he found it. I wanna show you something though, his second lie.

If you look at the picture here, you'll notice there's a bone over here, and that is a femur.

And it's a femur of a primate. In fact, this femur looks like a chimpanzee femur.

But see, he published in his science journals that this thing was found in rock, had to be dug up, that's not true.

He said specifically there were no other bones found, like extremity bones, when the skull was found.

But here it is. Here's a picture taken just hours later, and here is this femur. And he kept it hidden for 17 years until someone called him on it.

And then it got published in nature as like this big coverup deal. So I wanna show you why he would hide this femur.

I took a picture of a modern chimp femur from four different directions, the front view, the back view, the inside view and the outside view.

And this is that bone that was laying out there in the previous picture next to the skull.

This is the same bone, but it's only one bone, but he's turning it four different ways so you can see the four different views.

If you'll notice, there are similarities between the four views of this femur found next to Tumai and this chimp.

In fact, when you lay him on top of it, it's indistinguishable. Can you see that laid on top of there?

Yeah. See, it's like they look, and I don't know what you would call them other than a chimp femur.

Do you happen to have a picture, and maybe you don't have it here, but do you have a picture of a human femur? I mean, like, just for folks who don't know,

I mean, what would be the difference between a chimpanzee femur? How would it look different than a human?

There are, believe me, the differences are subtle. The differences are subtle, and a lot of times, the difference is the angle of the kneecap area here on the lower part, and the differences are subtle, but the problem is that it looks like a chimp, and he lied multiple times on camera saying there was no femur found, and that is very problematic.

Now, so your assumption, right, because we don't know the man's heart, but your assumption,

I guess, is that he lied because if there was the femur, it would reveal that the rest of the story he's telling is not true.

Yeah, if he says, well, here's a femur, and everyone says, that looks like a chimp femur, it's indistinguishable. So why don't we call this a chimp -like animal?

And then he gets knocked out. It just turns into an ape. So no, you do not want to mention this if you're trying to promote the idea that you found it, because by the way, a chimpanzee walks on all fours, it's a quadruped, and a human walks on all twos habitually, and it's a biped.

So if you have a femur from an animal that walks on all fours, you can't go around telling everybody that it's an animal that walks upright.

Yeah, you know, one of our watchers here, John, is saying, wow, great job,

Carl, love this guy. Hang on to your seat, because this is gonna get incredible.

And in fact, once you watch this video and finish it, you need to start sending it around on social media, because I am just getting started.

We've only, I got 150 feet fraud so far, and I've only done two or three so far,

I'm not counting. The next thing he did was, he claimed that the hole on the bottom of the skull, called the foramen magnum, where the spinal cord enters, was in the ape position.

But in fact, he moved the foramen magnum. And I'm gonna show you how he did this.

This would be the second evolution scientist from Paris that's done this. The first evolution scientist that did this was the original

Neanderthal reconstruction by Marcel and Bull in 1908. And he moved the foramen magnum on Neanderthal.

And then he said, Neanderthal walked bent over like an ape. So this is what this guy is doing. And he did it in a similar manner.

This skull is the final product that he ended up with. And you'll see all the bones that's missing.

Those bones only went missing in the last stages. And the missing bone on the bottom of the skull allows you to move things around like the foramen magnum.

I'm gonna show you this in a second. So just hold on. This is a computer, how the computer analysis came up with.

But when he created the fossil, he revealed that these bones were missing.

And so this allows him to move. So here is the foramen magnum of Tumai.

And if you look at the three skulls here, here's the bottom of a gorilla skull, here's the bottom of a human skull, and here's

Tumai. The gorilla skull, the foramen magnum's in the back, towards the back. And that means he walked bent over.

In the humans, it's more in the center. That means he walks upright. The skull's balanced on the head. In Tumai, the way the skull was found,

Andrew, it was distorted. This is a very distorted skull. And you can see because the teeth here are lined up towards the middle of the foramen magnum, the whole teeth arcade is bent over here.

So when the skull was found, the whole, or the foramen magnum is all distorted here.

You really don't know which way it should go. And I want you to pay attention to this bone here.

This bone is this bone right here. And on the human, it's right here.

It's this bone. When he had the skull and it was all distorted, he had the choice.

He could either move it down, this end down, and then it would be an ape. Or he can move this end up, and then it would be a human position, foramen magnum.

And he was allowed to remove bone here and here and move it.

And then he moved it. It's not how it was found. He moved it into the central position and said, it is in the ape man position.

And that was his big claim. That's how he knew it walked upright when in fact it was artificially created.

Now - How did he explain the teeth being so, I mean, just looking at this,

I mean, the teeth, the whole jawbone would have to be shifted. Yeah, the whole thing was crushed.

It was a very bad specimen to try to judge where things should be, unless you want to move it into a certain position and start removing a few bones.

And you then have a lot of freedom to make up an intermediate or a transitional by moving the bones around.

And yeah, it was a travesty. And here is how you know this man was not upright and honest.

And I want you to pay attention to this is most important. When we flew to Paris to interview

Dr. Michel Burnet, who promoted Tumai, the interview was weird.

He didn't want to really answer questions. And at the end of the interview, I said, I would like to photograph the model of Tumai skull on your desk.

He said, no, you can't, you're not allowed to photograph the skull reconstruction on my desk. Now I said, we're here interviewing you about Tumai and there's right three feet from me is this reconstructed skull and you're not gonna let me photograph it?

You know, I'm filming for a national television documentary and no, you can't photograph.

I said, well, could you supply me the CAT scans that you did of the original skull and then how you reconstructed it?

No. Can you supply me photographs of the original skull? No. And he did this, not only to me,

I didn't take offense to this is how the evolution scientists act when they have just found an ape man that you're trying to hide or promote.

He wouldn't let his colleagues, his colleagues have been barking about this. He hid the femur. He won't let people see his

CAT scans. People are wondering how he got to his conclusion to moving certain bones to a certain area.

And if this isn't enough to show you that it's fraudulent, he revealed during the interview that all of the skulls in the museums of Tumai are not accurate either.

And he refuses to supply the museums like Smithsonian, like the

American Museum in New York, like the Museum of Man in Paris. He refuses to supply them with an accurate copy of the skull.

No, it's supposed to be so amazingly important. That is a sign that you're covering something up, buddy.

Is that amazing? Yeah. That almost sounds like there's, I don't know how familiar you are with, there's supposedly a gospel of Mary Magdalene.

Yes. It's in French, of course. But it's supposedly, there is one copy of that.

And it's supposedly based off of this older copy.

But the one person who has that older copy will not let anyone photograph it.

Will not let anyone that knows the actual language to look at it. But he claims this is authentic.

So it's easy to make the claim. But when you refuse to let anybody verify it, it makes it really hard to believe that it's legitimate.

And this is, we've always thought that the scientists wouldn't let us see the original fossils because they're so important and we're just dummies.

And we're not paleoanthropologists. But that is a sham. That is a sham. What's going on is that the scientists who discover new ape men will not allow their colleagues to see the fossils unless they know that they're gonna give them a favorable review and agree with them.

And I know this because we were denied access to the most recent ape men.

And it's a whole long list. We were able to see the disproved ape men, but the ones where the scientist is living, generally you can't photograph the original fossils.

And why is that? It's just like the Mary Magdalene script. They don't want anyone to see it because it's gonna ruin their story.

And then all of a sudden their fame will go away. Yeah. And I mean, do not think that just because someone says they're a man of science, that they're not interested in fame, if not fortune.

I mean, maybe it used to be the case, but I really think Albert Einstein changed that.

He became the first celebrity scientist. But after that, it became a thing where people who are really good marketing people or really good charismatic type people can make a name for themselves.

You got a guy like Bill Nye calls himself the science guy, but how much science does he really know?

You have a lot of people that claim a fame using science.

And when it comes down to it and you start studying their background, you realize they got a degree in science, but they didn't actually do anything with it.

And some of the most famous ape men are promoted by car salesman type personality where they can sell it to you and they're boisterous and they look good on camera.

And Brene was one of these guys. And Johansson is one of these guys. And Raymond Dart was one of these guys.

The guys that love to get in front of the camera, they promote it. They sound totally believable without a shred of doubt.

And yet they're just like trying to make sure that their fossil gets promoted as an ape man.

Someone's by the handle of was lost says, Bill Nye only has a bachelor's in mechanical engineering, not much of a science guy.

And that's the point, it's really interesting because my background is computer science, right?

And so, and folks know when Anthony Silvestro, he's a dentist. So people would tell him he's not a real doctor because he's a dentist, but he got an actual doctorate and understand his bachelor's was in chemistry, right?

But they would somehow deny that. They would deny that I do any kind of science because it's computer science.

But if Bill Nye claims he does science, then it counts. Just an interesting way how that works.

I'll tell you what, it's worse in the field of human evolution. For example, the most famous human evolution scientists in all of South America, Florentino Ameghino, he didn't graduate from high school.

And the fellow who wrote

Charles Darwin, he never got a science degree. He went to religion school to be a preacher.

Then he went to medical school, but dropped out. He never got a science degree. And the guy who found

Piltdown Man from the Natural History Museum in London, he never got a college science degree.

And I could go on and on, but that's not necessary. But no, the scientists, many of them are unprepared to make the claims that they are making.

So the picture you have up there, it looks like this is a video. Do you actually have a video of this where it's shifting or is that just a picture that you took a still of?

No, so the audience needs to, when they hang up tonight, you guys need to go to my website, which is thegrantexperiment .com

and go then and watch the six -part television miniseries that we just released on human evolution.

And it's the most spectacular series you'll ever see. And we cover human evolution.

And the last four episodes document the 150 frauds that I'm talking about.

And there are so many frauds we had to do, like episode five, I think it is, was the human evolution fraud committed by scientists in North America.

And episode six were the human evolution scientists committing fraud in Africa. And then the next episode is human evolution scientists committing fraud in Europe.

And the next episode covers this Tumai one. It is a staggering set of videos and we've made them really inexpensive so everybody can watch them.

I think if you go to the site and rent them, they're only like $4 a video. You probably do one a week.

Maybe you could binge them or whatever, but you're gonna see these scientists on camera admitting that their colleague, accusing their colleague of committing fraud or they will be admitting that they committed fraud.

So they're not doing this from a Christian perspective. No. These are non -Christians challenging their own colleagues.

These are evolution loving anthropologists accusing their colleagues of fraud.

And that's very powerful. The pictures of the fossils are powerful, but when you have the evolution scientists,

I'm gonna do one of these in a little bit here. He's accusing his colleague of committing a fraud bigger than the

Piltdown fraud is what he said. I'm telling you, this is a watershed moment for Christianity, for the creation movement.

And I pray that everybody grabs this thing and runs, and shout from the housetops too, not just Carl Warner.

So let me do this at the moment. I know we have someone backstage that may have a question.

And so I'm just gonna ask Jesse, if you don't mind, if you do have a question, put it in the private chat there. So we know if your question is for Carl or not.

But before Carl continues with this, in case any of you are getting maybe a little sleepy, may

I encourage you to go to our sponsor here at Squirrely Joe's Coffee to get yourself a good cup of coffee.

And this is, I happen to have in front of me right now, a nice, well, this is my vacuum thing, but this is a wonderful, oh, that smells so good.

I love the smell of this coffee. But this is a wonderful cup of Integrity, which I've been enjoying.

Integrity is a Brazilian bean, but there's a lot of different types of coffee you can enjoy at Squirrely Joe's.

You know, maybe some mornings you're in the mood for some kindness. Maybe you need more kindness in your day.

Well, you can get a Costa Rica bean that he's got there that is his kindness one.

It happens to be a stone fruit, citrus, almond, and honey flavor. So a lot of different flavors, and I love the names that he's chosen with them.

And so you can go get a cup of good coffee, support a fellow brother in Christ at the same time.

Squirrely Joe's Coffee, you could just go to strivingforeternity .org slash coffee.

That is strivingforeternity .org slash coffee to get yourself a nice cup of Squirrely Joe's Coffee.

And also what you could do if it's your first time getting yourself some

Squirrely Joe's Coffee, what you could do is save yourself some money. I'm Jewish, I love saving money.

So what you should do is go out there, use the promo code SFE. So when you put your stuff into the bag, your cart, just go in and there's at the top is a little thing for discount code.

Put in there SFE for Striving For Eternity so that you can get yourself a 20 % discount on your first order.

So if you're Jewish like me, what does that mean? Well, that means you order one of every bag so that your first order, you get the greatest discount.

Just saying, okay, I did think about getting the five pound bags that are meant for like churches just so I could really save the money, but we didn't have room to store it in the house.

But I thought about it. But I will say, when you reorder, continue to go to strivingforeternity .org

slash coffee so that Squirrely Joe's knows that you heard about them from us. And that way you'll be able to enjoy not only a nice cup of coffee, but let them know that you heard about it from us so that they'll continue to sponsor us, which we well kind of appreciate.

Also to let you know, if you do when the show is done, don't do this now, but if you wanna put your head down on a nice pillow, go to mypillow .com,

use the promo code SFE, get yourself not only a good pillow, but you can get yourself what

I actually love is the three inch mattress topper. Wow, did that change my sleep? But they have their nice Giza sheets, they got towels, they got robes, they got a whole lot of things.

Just go to mypillow .com, use the promo code SFE so that they also know that you found out about them through us and they continue supporting us and you get huge discounts, which well,

Jewish people love big discounts. So let us get back to Dr. Carl with some more fossils.

Oh shoot, you're so funny, Andrew. I am, but looks are not everything. Just keep that in mind.

Oh shoot, but that coffee does sound good. I need to get some Squirrely Joe's coffee. That sounds really good right now.

It smells so good. Every time I open this, I'm just like, I go to make the coffee in the morning, I'm like, oh wait, let me just smell the beans first.

Yeah, you can get beans or you can get a ground, but I actually changed my whole setup because I used to just put the coffee grounds into a coffee thing and let it do it.

And now my daughter's got me grinding the beans myself and doing the pour over to get it really, because she was like, oh dad, you're losing so much of the taste of the coffee.

So I guess she's turning me into a coffee snob, but it is good, I love it. And I mean, it doesn't, like this thing has been a couple of weeks now and it still smells so fresh.

I love the smell of coffee. Yeah, it's good.

Well, are you ready for the next frauds? Yeah, let's look at some more. All right, do we have time to do another one or not?

Yeah, well, let me see this. Let me just bring, if I could, let me bring

Jesse in. I don't see him on camera, but I'll just bring him in and see if he has a question for you or for me, or let's just see.

Jesse, hello. Jesse, hello. Okay, I hear an echo. What's that? I hear an echo, but go ahead.

You have any questions for us tonight? Oh no, I'm sorry. I was interacting with a guy named

Easy in the chat. And yeah, so I was kind of interacting with him.

I didn't have a question for Carl necessarily right now. Well, if you have any questions for us, just type it in the private chat and I'll remove you for now.

And yeah, if you have questions, put it in the private chat and we'll add you back in. Some people, Carl, just like to sit in the back and watch.

I think what it is is they're afraid that they may miss something in the private chat so they like to see. Well, there's a lot to miss.

You don't wanna miss any of this tonight. So what else do you have?

I know you mentioned you have something on Lucy, which I'm very interested to see because that's one particular one that I enjoy.

Let me see here and go to this. So I am going to share

Johansson's picture. Now the picture right now can be ignored and you can focus on me just for the time being.

The first frauds of Johansson. Now, Johansson has multiple frauds and nobody is aware of this, but Johansson found this knee joint in Afar, Ethiopia in 1973, which he said was

Australopithecus aparensis and was later called the Lucy type. And this knee joint, when he initially found it, he was on his documentary and he said, this knee joint is not an ape knee joint.

It is a human knee joint. Now this was his primary point about the

Lucy type fossils that the knee joint was human appearing.

And so because the knee of Lucy, Lucy is only about three and a half feet tall, about the size of a chimpanzee, because her knee was human -like, this meant that Lucy walked upright like humans and wasn't just an ape, but was an ape man.

Everybody's heard that who's ever seen anything about Lucy. Well, Debbie and I would not only, we not only interviewed

Johansson, we always tried to interview the secondary people and tertiary people around the scientific claims.

So Debbie and I, Debbie is my wife, by the way, and our production company is Carl and Debbie Warner with a bunch of equipment and we do everything.

We then flew to Paris. I think it was at the beginning of COVID, I guess it would be 2022, something like that,

I don't know. Can't think of it now, but, and we interviewed Dr. Johansson's partner.

His name is Dr. Yves Coppens. And Dr. Coppens was the co -director of the dig in Afar, Ethiopia where Lucy -type fossils were found, okay?

He is on the ground, he is a co -director, and he's been claimed as being the person who found

Lucy besides Johansson, and that's why he's famous in Europe, because he gets the position in Europe, what

Johansson does in the United States, saying he's responsible for Lucy. We set up the cameras and started asking him questions, and my first question to Dr.

Yves Coppens, the partner, was, Dr. Coppens, Johansson in 1973 found this knee joint.

Was the knee joint human -like or was it ape -like?

Now, I already know what he's gonna say. He's gonna say it's human -like, because I've already heard that for 30 years, right?

And so, Dr. Coppens, is the knee joint human -like or ape -like?

He said, oh, the knee joint of Lucy is ape. I was like, what?

He said, no, it's an ape knee. See, for Johansson to write the following statement, and I hope

I get the quote right, but he said, all analysis of the Lucy knee joint reveals that it is a human -like knee joint.

But I just interviewed his partner, and he said, no, it's an ape joint. Then we also interviewed a student of his who was attending a lecture at the

University of California when he was teaching about Lucy. And the student, and we have this on camera, said that Johansson analyzed the

Lucy -type knee joint that he found, and when he analyzed it under computer analysis,

Johansson concluded that it was an ape -like knee. So his whole premise is based on it's a human -like knee, but it's not a human -like knee, it's an ape -like knee based on his own analysis and based on his partner's analysis, which was all kind of suppressed.

So that's the first major revelation and a fraudulent statement that he made.

The second was the following. Now, Lucy's up in Ethiopia.

She was found, first, the knee joint was found in 73, then the Lucy skeleton, which was a different individual, was found in 74, and it was a nearly, or 70 % complete skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis.

That's the Lucy -type skeleton. But Johansson's second point was that Lucy walked upright.

Why? Not only the knee joint, which is ape, but because of these footprints that are 1 ,000 miles south of where they found her.

Now, that gets really kind of a stretch. Why would you say that proves that she walks upright? Well, 1 ,000 miles, two countries away at Laetoli, Tanzania, Mary Leakey found these human -like footprints at Laetoli.

In fact, you look at these, they're in rock. They look like two people just walked down the beach and they're amazingly human -like.

And Johansson wrote in his book, from Lucy D. Language in 1995, that the reason we know

Lucy walked upright is her bones were found at Laetoli near these footprints.

And so his argument was, we have the footprints, what animal made them? That's a good question.

And he said it had to be Lucy because Lucy was the only, you know, ape or human kind of fossil that was found at Laetoli.

So who else could have made them other than these other Lucy fossils that we found in Laetoli, Tanzania?

Well, I thought that was kind of a hollow argument. Maybe the humans made the footprints and they just didn't die there, you know, but I get it, it's a valid argument.

And I think it's fair, it's just based on negative evidence. I just don't take negative evidence very seriously.

But when we did the secondary interviews, guess what happened? Debbie and I, Debbie's my wife, we flew to Tanzania.

We met with the former national director of the

National Museum of Tanzania where the Laetoli fossils are stored.

We went back into the fossil vault and he said, well, what do you wanna see? I said, I'd like to photograph every fossil that's come from Laetoli.

Not that I knew anything was there, it's just part of my, I just wanted to get the facts and see what was found. And so he pulls out the first one and yeah, it's a

Lucy -type fossil. I don't know, I can't remember if it was a jaw or tooth, whatever. He pulls out the second one. These are all labeled

LH1, Laetoli hominid one. LH2, Laetoli hominid two.

He pulls out the third one, it's a Lucy -type fossil. Fourth one, Lucy -type fossil. Fifth one is a Lucy -type fossil. They're all

Australopithecus afarensis. I get it. But hours later, we're up to Laetoli hominid 18.

What did he pull out when he showed me Laetoli hominid 18? It was a human skull.

Nobody knows this, that a human skull was found at Laetoli and Dr. Johanson said that there were no other hominids that would be apes, ape -man or human found at Laetoli.

Oh, yes, there was. There was a human skull found at Laetoli. Now, just these two facts, just,

I found astounding. He portrayed this incorrectly for us as a nation, for the world, and this is astounding.

So that was a second fraud. The third fraud that he did was the

Lucy pelvis. Now, hang on, don't jump to conclusions yet because I know that you know the story.

So Johanson said in his documentary, In Search of Human Origins, the second show, he said this.

He said, we know Lucy walked upright because her knee is human, it wasn't. And we know that she walked upright because of these footprints, but there was human skulls found there.

So when we found the pelvis of Lucy, we were initially confused because the pelvis looks like an ape pelvis.

And here you can see here on the top right here, this is copies of Lucy's pelvis, the original bone, but a copy of it.

And you can see that the pelvis bone goes straight out to the side. It doesn't turn forward like a human.

Like humans, the pelvis turns forward and goes to the front of your body. But in apes, it just goes straight out to the side.

Here's the same bones at a different museum that someone's at a different lab.

And he put the bones together, but you can still see the pelvis blade, the upper pelvis blade goes straight out.

And here, this photograph was taken at Johanson's office at the University of Arizona.

But it gave me the opportunity to photograph the fossils assembled, but from the side view. And so you're looking from the side of Lucy and you can see that this blade goes straight out towards you.

It doesn't turn forward like a human pelvis. And Johanson says in his show,

In Search of Human Origins, this pelvis has to be wrong because Lucy, we know she walked upright.

And so we know she should have a human pelvis. And so we think this pelvis got bent and it started out as a human pelvis, but it got bent when it got fossilized to an ape pelvis.

So in other words, it doesn't agree with our conclusion. So we just got to make up what, we know this is the fact because we said it and we don't get rich and famous if it's not the fact.

So we'll just move it, we'll just shift it. We're gonna change it to the complete opposite of what it was.

Yeah. Ape pelvis it starts out and he's gonna change it into human pelvis. Now, this is not fraud, by the way.

What he's doing here now is not fraud, it's just stupid. It just, you know, that's a stupid scientist. There's a difference between stupid and fraud.

This is just stupid to think that you could take a ape shaped pelvis and change it into human pelvis. And you're justified for concluding that it walked upright.

But this is what he does. So on that show, he takes a copy, a plaster copy of the

Lucy pelvis, okay? It's all plaster. And then he takes his gremel saw and he chops the pelvis plaster copy up into three, four pieces.

And it cuts those into pieces. Then the pieces still couldn't be turned forward yet.

So he had to take this grinder, all the plasters flying on the show.

And then he can reassemble it. And guess what? It is a perfect human pelvis.

It turns forward. And this is now Lucy's pelvis turned forward after the gremel, after the sawing, after the plaster has been flying around the lab.

I remember watching that and just being like, does nobody get what he's doing? Like, it was just an amazing thing when

I first saw that. And he's sitting there going, well, we know it should be like this. So he's sawing, you know, like cutting it down to make it fit what he wants it to look like.

And it's just, look what we found. Like, I'm amazed. I was amazed. This was the part that amazed me is that he could do that.

Yes. And nobody ever questioned, well, gee, if you didn't do this and it looks like an ape, why not just accept that it always was an ape?

Like, it's just amazing how the blinders that people have on because they so want evolution to be true, that someone could sit there with cameras rolling and say, let me show you how we do this.

And we cut it down to make it fit what we want it to. And no one says, well, gee, that's deception.

That is so bold, so bold to do it. And then you wonder why are the rest of the evolution scientists silent on that?

Why didn't they scream? They should be the ones screaming. I want to show you why it was fraudulent and not just stupid scientists.

We all agree it's stupid scientists to do that, but here's why it became fraud. In his book,

Lucy the Language, he printed this picture of the pelvis and it looks like a human pelvis now.

And if you'll notice on the left side where the bone was cut and shaped and recut, it looks like natural bone here.

And I can't zoom this in for you, but it looks like textured natural bone.

But see, this isn't textured natural bone. There should be a cut mark, a cut mark, a cut mark infilled with white plaster to show where he made the cuts and how he did it.

And you see, he implies that the plaster is on the opposite side, which is a copy of the left side.

But in reality, this is plaster and it is altered.

And in his book, he did not tell you that this was an altered pelvis. He instead said this pelvis is quote, the evidence of bipedalism.

He did that on page 87 of his book. This pelvis, which looks human, is evidence that it walked upright.

Now that's fraud because he didn't tell him that he cut it up in the book. A lot of people spread the book and they never saw the television show where he cut it up.

He needed to tell that he cut it up. And here's the problem in museums today.

If you go to the Smithsonian, they have the round pelvis and they don't have the cut marks.

And most of the museums that have the Lucy pelvis reconstructed, they don't tell you that it's cut and altered.

And that is fraud because they should be saying, look, this pelvis looked like an ape pelvis when he found it.

And we agree. They could say, we agree with them that it should be human pelvis, which is stupid scientist museum.

But you can't just put it up there and not explain that and give the audience a fair chance of finding out what is the truth.

Yeah. And that's why I love going to museums and just, like if we, if folks, if you know this stuff, when you go to a museum, it becomes a chance to share the gospel.

Just because, look, the reality is if you understand this stuff and you can speak to it, then you just sit there and describe it.

And I'm telling you, and I'm telling you this from personal experience, people that are just walking around, they tend to think, especially for someone like me,

I do it as if I'm a tour guide. So everyone just gathers in and listens. And I could describe it. And often what

I'll do like with Lucy is, I will point out, they'll have a plaque there that talks about the pelvis and I'll point out and you read the plaque.

So everyone's focused on that. And then I'll just say, no, notice what we have here. Notice the parts that are missing.

Notice here where it was cut. And you could explain that.

And all of a sudden people go, oh, I didn't know that. And then if you have more of this information, you could start going, well, do you see why some people would doubt it?

And this is the best they have. Look, the best evolution has is fraud.

That can tell you something. If the best they have is fraud, then they have nothing.

That's right. That is true. And not to change the subject here or go on a side topic, but if anybody lives near a natural history museum and you would like to lead tours, you can lead them for your homeschool groups or whatever.

We have the resources. So we have handout pictures of the altered fossils.

And then we have a little video clips you can put on your iPad. And there are little video clips from our television series that explain exactly why it's a fraud.

You don't really have to know much. You just take them to the correct fossil, this is called Homo habilis, but this is actually based on these four frauds.

And then you play the video clip and then you hold up the picture. And so you really don't have to be very knowledgeable.

You just have to have a desire to teach Christians about the frauds in the museums.

You can contact me through my website, thegrandexperiment .com for that. Good.

That's good to know. Yeah. I mean, I have a friend of mine, Carl Kirby, who would do that. He would go into Smithsonian and just walk through and do tours for people.

And it is an effective way to evangelize. I do that as well. And the reason is because as you go through, people, especially if they think they could latch onto a free tour, that you'll get people,

I've had this happen, where they follow me through the entire museum. And I'm just going at every one of their fossils and I'm just pointing out,

I explain what they have there and then I explain the problems with it. And I keep pointing back to the gospel of why evolution have to argue this way.

Why do they have to do this? It becomes a very interesting and fun way to evangelize.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, Andrew, tell me, because I don't want to just be monologuing.

And should we sign me off or should I keep going? Why don't you go for one more?

Folks have a little bit more. Okay. So just remember there's 150 and we've only done seven or eight.

Yeah. Okay. So I'm telling you, I could just go for hours of these frauds and most people don't know about them.

You can see them on the video series, The Grand Experiment. That's an eight part video series, but it's episodes five, six, seven, and eight.

But I want to show you the next one. Again, well known called Homo habilis, okay?

Homo habilis, let me just do this. Homo habilis was found in 1960 to 64 by Louis Leakey, Mary Leakey, Napier, and a fellow by the name of Philip Tobias was also there.

And they wrote the description of this new ape man called

Homo habilis. And if anybody has been to college and take an anthropology course, this is just like standard.

Yes. It's the intermediate between the five foot tall ape or four foot tall ape and the six foot tall

Homo erectus, which is actually human. And they said, this is a creature that has a brain, not 500

CC like an ape, but, and not a thousand CC like a human, but it's about six to 700 CCs.

It's an enlarged brain. And Dr. Tobias was responsible for this primarily because he wrote up the articles.

And this is what they call the type specimen on the screen here.

It was a left and right skull piece. It was some finger bones, but I want to show you the skull pieces, why they're fraudulent.

This is a type specimen of Homo habilis is called 087. And by the way, the type specimen is sacrosanct.

You can't alter the type specimen because the type specimen is what all other scientists are going to compare their bones to.

It has to be just a pure fossil, okay? So here's the picture that Dr.

Tobias printed in his 400 -page orange -covered monograph, I think in 1994, of what this skull looked like, okay?

There were really no problems there. I don't see anything that jumps out. Now the letters A and B I put on there,

I'll talk about that in a minute. Well, Debbie and I flew to Africa and filmed these type specimens for Homo habilis, something that nobody, practically anybody does, even the best anthropologists, they don't take photographs, they don't think about it, they just look at the fossils.

So here's the photograph of this fossil that we took, or I took this picture.

This is the same fossil. And when I took the picture of the fossil,

I didn't make sure it was the exact same angle and the exact same perspective because I wasn't even aware of this picture here in black and white that they printed.

I've just taken pictures of the fossils, okay? When I get home, I pull this out and then

I wanted to see what he had to say about it. And I looked at his black and white picture of the same bone, this is the same fossil.

It's like, this doesn't even look the same. What's the difference between his picture and my picture?

Well, there's this area of B that I thought was part of the fossil, but it's absent.

It's missing. It turns out that he added plaster and B is all plaster, but he did not make this clear.

This was not bone. This was not part of the type specimen yet, but he implied it was.

And why would you put in more bone on a skull? Because he wanted to make it bigger. This animal turned out to have an ape -sized brain,

Homo habilis, and you can read about that in my book, but he trying to make it 200 CCs bigger.

So how does he do it? He adds plaster here. Nobody caught that. And then he adds this bone here,

A. Nothing looks wrong on it in the black and white picture he provided. But when

I looked at my pictures, I was like, there's something funny about this. And if you notice,

A looks like a different bone than the rest of the skull. It actually was added and it wasn't part of the original animal.

And I'll show you that in a second. This is a left skull piece. When you flip it over, this is the outside.

When you flip it over and take a better look, here's B where the plaster is missing now.

And here's A. It looks nothing like this skull here. Do you see that, Andrew? Then you realize this bone

A is connected with a straight line. Now, we would say that this would be a part of the skull if it fit like a puzzle -like fit.

You'd be convinced, yeah, it's part of the skull. It just maybe got discolored because it was sitting in the sun or something like that.

But when a bone is connected to another bone and it's a straight line, there's a lot of bones that have straight lines.

And you can put a straight line bone onto a straight line edge and extend a skull.

And you can see here, it didn't extend correctly. So you had to put a little plaster in here. This is a fraud.

And I'm gonna tell you how I know it was a fraud. If you hold on, I'm gonna go over to the other side. This is the left skull piece.

Here's the right skull piece, same thing. Here's his picture, here's my picture. And you look, letter

C here, you don't really realize there's something wrong with it. You flip it over and look at letter

C. It looks like it doesn't belong to this skull. And again, it's attached with a straight line, okay?

And so now I'm motivated, like, okay, what's the deal here? And I've read in his monograph something,

I'm gonna paraphrase it, but something like, we found fossil OH7, but some of the pieces were not located near the fossil.

Do you see what I'm saying? They find these skull pieces and then maybe a hundred feet away, and he didn't say how far away.

And he said that some of these bones may be from other animals. But we put them together because it fits.

And then we can make a bigger brain. And then we can say we found a new ape man. And you know what,

Homo habilis, most of the public is not aware, even like today I was watching a show, the evolution scientists, they're not aware that Homo habilis is basically on the trash pile.

It was mistaken. It was actually Australopithecus. And it wasn't a large brain.

It's brain, they did find a complete one. His brain was only in the 500s, like a chimp -sized brain.

And now the scientists are saying, this isn't a new genus, Homo, and it's not a new, anything new.

It's Australopithecus, which of an animal that's not an ape man. So there's one.

Now hold your seats. That's only one of three frauds he did. That's just one. Are you getting overwhelmed?

Or can I do the last one? Oh yeah, do it. I mean, the thing that cracks me up is that, and I saw someone do this.

They looked at different fossils that are supposedly ape men's. And they just had a, they just kept,

I think it was Carl Kirby that did this. And he just, he'd put it up and it'd be like Lucy. And then he'd just move it to the ape.

Every one of them either moved to ape or human. And there's nothing in this middle transitionary category.

Once you take away them, oh, well, we'll file this down. We'll add this.

We make it fit what we want. When you remove all that, you either get it's ape or chimpanzee, something in that family or human.

All of a sudden they completely make up like, oh, we found a tooth. It must, let's redraw this whole thing.

You know, this is why evolution only exists in textbooks. That's the only place we actually find it.

We don't find it in the real world. Right. It's in the charts and the diagrams and the reconstructive models.

And it's wherever they can insert their creativity to make a transition on. Well, this is

Homo habilis. This was the type specimen. He did it again for this Homo habilis skull.

It's called STW53. And this one was not found at Olduvai Gorge.

It was found in South Africa and they found these fragments. I don't know how many of there are 14 fragments of skull.

And Dr. Tobias team thought it was a Homo habilis. And he asked his colleague,

Dr. Ron Clark to assemble them into a skull. And Dr. Ron Clark assembles these pieces into this skull here.

Okay. Now this is the frontal view of that skull but these two are the other views of that same skull.

So all three of these are the same skull. The frontal view, the underneath view and the side view.

Okay. It's all this. Now, when we went to interview the scientists who assembled it, his name is

Dr. Ron Clark. Dr. Tobias is now dead. Okay. When the scientist dies, then their colleagues are very frank.

And he said, what Tobias did here was a biggest fraud.

And it was a fraud bigger than Piltdown. Now this is an evolution scientist from the University of Wichita Watershed.

His colleague from the same university. But now that Tobias is dead, he's saying what

I'm gonna show you here in just a second here, STW53, the skull of Homo habilis was a fraud bigger than Piltdown, man.

And I wanna show you why he said that. When Dr. Clark assembled these bones into this skull,

STW53 in 1984, he then gave it back to Dr. Tobias and said, here's your skull.

See, cause Clark was really good at reassembling skulls. That's why he asked him to do it. And Tobias looked at it and he scratched his head.

He said, I don't like it. And he said, and by the way, this is all on camera on,

I think it's episode seven. And Clark is describing this on camera. So he takes this skull back to Tobias and says, okay, here's your skull.

And Tobias says, I don't like it. He said, the brain is too small. And he says, what do you mean the brain is too small?

He said, well, this is Homo habilis. It's supposed to have a brain around 700. And yet you just reconstructed it with a brain like the size of a chimp, 500.

No, no, I don't want to stop you. So people hear what you just said. He said, because this is, this is what we're saying, right?

This is the whole point of this. He starts with a conclusion when the evidence doesn't fit the conclusion.

Oh no, it's supposed to be this way. That's right. This is what you end up saying.

And this is what I want. Look, people do this with the Bible too. They come to the Bible and say, well, this is what this means.

And then they want to make the Bible fit what they wish it said. The same thing you have here.

You have people who are coming to the evidence instead of letting the evidence dictate their beliefs. That's right.

They make their beliefs dictate the evidence. Yep, that is exactly what happened here.

And then multiple, multiple, multiple examples that I could keep going. But I want to show you what he did then.

Dr. Clark gives him back the skull and he said, I don't like it. It's too small. It should be a bigger brain.

And Dr. Clark, and this is on camera, guys. You gotta watch it. You gotta watch this video clip.

It's priceless. Dr. Clark says, and he's telling the camera and me, you know, the story. He says, what do you mean it's too small?

I mean, I can't reassemble it. I mean, the bones fit together where the bones fit together.

That's not a choice where you can take them apart and make them bigger. He said, the bones are what it is.

You can't enlarge it. And Tobias said, well, okay, okay. They just kind of went off.

And that was the end of the discussion. Then Tobias gets a kind of a graduate student working there by the name of Dr.

Darren Kernow. And he goes to him, he said, Dr. Kernow, now Kernow had no real experience of reassembling skulls.

Clark had all the experience. So he goes to Kernow, Dr. Kernow, would you mind taking another look at the skull and maybe take it apart and see if it shouldn't be bigger.

So Kernow disassembles the skull and he enlarges it.

So look here, on the left here is the original reconstruction by Dr.

Clark. You see that? And this is what Dr. Kernow changed it into.

See how small this skull is here? A lot of added pieces there or a lot of added plaster, I should say.

He added a ton of plaster and extended it an extraordinary amount lengthwise.

And then he enlarged the side of the skull with more plaster. And in the back, he spread bones out apart.

He just basically spread the bones apart, made it into a larger skull and changed it basically from a 500 cc brain to a 750 cc brain approximately.

And there you go. Homo habilis does have a big skull, just like we predicted after you reassemble it and take it apart and stretch it.

And that's when Dr. Clark said on camera, Dr. Tobias's work on ST53 was a fraud bigger than the

Piltdown Man. That's his own colleague. This isn't Carl Warner saying this, this is him. Yeah, wow.

And so it's not just the argument that I hear so much from atheists, it's only

Christians who point these things out. The scientific community is all in agreement.

And, you know, okay, well, first off, that's a logical fallacy. Even if this whole scientific community is all in agreement, which they're not, that doesn't prove something to be right, especially when you see the fraud that is being done.

But I hope that for the Christian, this encourages you to realize when people use evolution to try to say, oh, well, your eyes, like, why don't you believe this?

This is what everyone believes. Clearly not. This is clearly not what everyone believes.

Even amongst themselves, though, you know, they will challenge and say, well, that's not right, but they don't want that to go public.

Why? That's right. Because, look, the reality is, they all want grant money.

And that grant money comes in if you have the conclusion that the person paying the grant wants you to have.

It's a very simple thing. The person who pays the bill is right, and the person who's trying to get the money from the person that pays the bill.

So you have all these grants, whether federal or through organizations, but they're paying people to find certain things or discover certain things.

Well, these people get paid if they discover that. And if they don't discover it, they are not going to get paid, or they're not gonna, they might get paid for the work they did, but they're not gonna get renewed in the future.

That's right, that's what they're scared of. Yeah, so you cannot take that aspect out.

Think about, I mean, just think on your own job. You know, you're working for someone. You're getting paid.

You want to keep that paycheck, so you're gonna do what your boss expects you to do to keep the job.

Well, in the case for these scientists, their job is this sort of research.

So if year after year they can't produce anything, someone's gonna say, well, why am I paying you? And so I do think there's some pressure on these people to say,

I got to get something, because I need that grant money to come in. And so that's how

I think people get there. I think they, I don't think this is, and Carl, you may disagree with me.

I don't think that this is this desire to show widespread fraud.

They don't mean to. I think for a lot of them, they're taking shortcuts because they're trying to find a way to show that their research is valuable to keep grant money coming.

And it's little shortcuts here and a little shortcut there and a little shortcut here. And then before they know it, they don't even realize that with all their shortcuts, they made these small steps down the line to where they're doing what is very clearly fraud to others, but they can't see it themselves because it was just a small step each time.

Mm -hmm. And we could look back and go, well, yeah, it's fraud, but it's even more important when their own colleagues are calling it fraud.

Mm -hmm. And it's blatant stuff, and you just can't imagine this happening.

You know, he did this, I just showed you two of these that he just did. There's another one, OH -13, that was a fraudulent fossil that he enlarged, put plaster in.

And he also, Philip Tobias, altered the range of normal human brain size to make his ape man.

See, humans, the brains of humans go all the way down to 550 CCs. They're rare.

There's people that have been normal people with brains down to 650 CCs. There's historical accounts of those, and there's brains of humans that have 750, 850, 950.

But Tobias knew these facts. But in his book, The Brain and Hominid Evolution, he said the range of humans was 1 ,000

CCs to 2 ,000 CCs. And see, that was a false fraudulent statement.

He knew of examples of humans with 650 CC brains that were normal humans.

But by making the humans 1 ,000 to 2 ,000, it became a neat little chart.

500 CCs for apes, 600 for Homo habilis, and 900 for Homo erectus.

And you have this nice progression. And it was all bull because the human brain size overlaps all those creatures that were supposed to be ape men.

Yeah, it was one of the things that I like to do is pull up pictures.

The Mayans used to have this thing where they would elongate their skulls from a very young age, and they'd purposely shift it.

You look at their skulls, and they look like an alien. So if we looked at that, what people describe as an alien, right?

But it doesn't look human. You have in Africa where they elongate their neck.

And so if you look at that skull, you're gonna say, oh, well, that's the transition between a human and a giraffe.

But that is possible to do. And so when they do these things, they always seem to want to reject or ignore some of that that could play into it.

And also, most people are not aware of it that Neanderthal is portrayed as, still today, as this really grotesque animal with big eyebrow ridges that you would just say, what is that thing?

But the evolution scientists that we interviewed, the top -notch evolution scientists told us repeatedly, you would not notice a

Neanderthal human if he got onto a bus and he was in a suit coat. You would not notice it, because there are variations throughout the humankind living today that look like Neanderthal.

There's variations that look like Homo erectus. And what they like to do is portray this European -look skull so they can make the other skulls look different or look more like ape men.

But in reality, human skulls vary tremendously. And the Australian Aborigines, their skulls look slanted.

They have big brow ridges, et cetera, et cetera. So they made up a lot of intermediates by just using one type of skull as the example of what humans are, and then they could make the intermediates.

It was wrong. Yeah, well, before you go, let me give you one comment that Ze had said.

He said, Andrew Rapport and Carl Werner, I love you both, and couldn't have said what you're saying better.

Keep doing what you're doing, kings. Well, I don't think I'm a king, but we do thank you for that.

Thank you, Ze. Appreciate that. So folks,

I put the wrong banner up. I wanna remind folks, go to thegrandexperiment .com,

thegrandexperiment .com. That's where you can find out more about Carl, find out where you can get his books, see, as he mentioned, his series that he has, so you can watch that.

And so I encourage you to go check that out. Any last things that you wanna say before you go?

Any ways you want folks to, things you wanna promote, or ways people can get in touch with you?

Yes. This is really important that the Christians pick this up and run with it, and that this thing doesn't die as a nice podcast.

It is important that everybody that's listening learn this material and teach it to your children.

The children are dying because they're going through evolution training in grade school, high school, and college.

And unfortunately, you're gonna have to pick up the gauntlet here and learn about evolution.

And I would suggest you read my book series. I don't need the money, it's not a money thing, but read my

Evolution to Grand Experiment series, the four book series. And if you have children, that you do the homeschool program with those same books.

There's a teacher's manual that goes through it. And if you're in charge of a school or a church school, that you institute the four semester creation curriculum that we have, because it will make them rock solid.

When they get to college, they can shout down any professor who starts feeding them with bull. And without that, they're gonna go in like me, going to college and be easily convinced and not have an argument and they'll collapse spiritually.

So for those who don't have kids, I would encourage you when you watch the video series, consider watching it in reverse.

And it's eight parts, but start at the last episode eight, because that one starts with Tumai and you can see him portraying this skull from the

Jura desert. And then you see the fakery that goes along with it. And then if you do the last four episodes, starting at the end of the series, and again, they're only $4 to watch, is you can watch the 150 frauds laid out.

And that's all those four videos are about, the 150 frauds. And they're very well done.

It's like watching Discovery Channel PBS. We spent a ton of money on it and you will be entertained.

I'm telling you that it'll be total entertainment, not only for my wife's videography, but the crazy things they're saying.

And then the beautiful fossil pictures, but start with the grand experiment series, but go backwards from episode eight, go backwards.

Well, I appreciate you coming on. Thank you for what you're doing. It's, I mean, not everyone's gonna have the time, the background, or quite frankly, the hair left.

Oh, wait, this explains it. To go through all these museums and do all the research you've done.

I understand. You know, when I was studying the world religions to write my book, What Do They Believe? My wife would hear me just scream as I would be like,

I can't believe these people believe this. And she'd be like, would you please stop researching this?

I said, why? She goes, you're losing your hair as you pull it out. So I get it. It explains some, but yeah, no, there's not many people who could devote themselves to looking at this stuff and then disseminating it in a way that could easily be understood and easily be seen in pictures and video so that people can go, oh, wait, this is not what they said it was.

So I really wanna, I really thank you for all the work that you do. Well, you know, you can tell that I'm a good scientist by that I don't have a single hair left on my head.

Well, that's just because you pulled it out looking at all these fossils. That's what I thought. Yeah, exactly, exactly.

Well, thank you very much for coming on. I know we had a couple of questions that don't have to do with evolution.

And so I wanted to try to get to those before the show. So Dr.

Carl, thank you for coming in and folks go check out his ministry. Any of the, anyone else who's got a podcast or a live stream,

I encourage you to go check out the work that he's doing there. And you'd be able to find out more about him and maybe get him on your show, just saying so.

Absolutely. All right, guys, God bless you and thank you for having me on. All right, bye now.

All right, so let me get to two things quickly. Here is

EZ, Jesse was in earlier, said he was engaging with EZ. So he says, if the

Messiah must come from the lineage of David, and he says he's seeing that from Jeremiah 23, five, how could

Jesus be Messiah if he was directed from God?

God, of course, does not come from David. And so, all right.

As I've been interacting with him throughout the show as well, it seems he may be

Jewish in this, I'm guessing. I asked him if he'd come in, he said he had stage fright, okay.

It's just a lot easier to be able to have the dialogue that way. But let's read that,

Jeremiah 23, verse five said, behold, the days are coming, declares the

Lord, when I will raise up for David a branch and he will reign as king, act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land.

By the way, as we continue to read verse six, in his days

Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be known, the

Lord our righteousness. By the way, that word Lord there is a name that is specific to God.

Some would translate it Yahweh or Jehovah. Jewish people would not state that name, so we only have the consonants.

Folks that don't know, you don't have vowels when you'd read Hebrew, so we don't know what the vowels would be.

Therefore, when we look at this, we only have the consonants because we would substitute for this, when we look at it, we would end up substituting the word

Adonai. And so here you have a case where he's trying to say, well, is this, you know, how could this be?

Well, it's very simple. Jesus is God and he existed before he was on earth.

And so as a human, God became man and as a man, he was born in the lineage of David.

And that is why David in Psalms could say, the Lord says to my Lord, well, what

Lords are which there? You have two Lords? No, but you have two persons that were both

Lord. And so if Easy wants to say that this passage somehow disproves because God can't come from David, God didn't come from David, a human came from David, but that human was

God. So he had both natures and this prophecy in Jeremiah 23, six, you read the next verse is

God. So I don't know what he's gonna do with that because as why I wish he was in here, because what you'd see is that the passage clearly teaches that this branch of David, this branch that would be raised up of David is whether you wanna call it

Yahweh Sikhenu, Jehovah Sikhenu, the Lord, our righteousness. And now some will say, as Jehovah Witnesses try to say with this as well, it's just his name.

This is a name that would be blasphemy. You could say Daniel, the

L is the single form of Elohim, which is the name we have for God.

And L is the singular form. And we could take Daniel and make a compound with it, but we do not make a compound with the covenant keeping name of God.

That would be blasphemy. And you know that because that's the reason that Jewish people don't say this name.

In fact, you can usually tell a Jewish person will put G space D because they don't wanna write the name

God. They do not wanna use God's name in vain. And this specific name was the name they would never do that with.

So to say that he's saying, oh, it's just a name he's being called would either be blasphemy or he's claiming deity.

It's one or the other, but you either have Jeremiah committing blasphemy or you have

Jeremiah saying that this will, this son of David will be God. I don't know if he's able to, like this is the thing he's gotta listen and type it in and it doesn't make for a good conversation, but easy, let me give you the encouragement.

Overcome the fear of being on camera, come on in and let's have the discussion. It would be much better.

He's arguing you can't prove the Old Testament from the New Testament.

Yeah, you can. You can prove things from, because it's all one author.

So with that, let me briefly get to what I said at the beginning I would talk about just briefly, it shouldn't take long.

If you remember, we had the gentleman, Anthony Nicarado, he responded to me after many months. This goes back to October.

And so I'm gonna, I wanna read his, what he posted. He sent it to me and just let's deal with things.

He said, not that you will read this or give a fair reply after months of thinking, praying and talking to friends about it, but here's my reply to our dumpster fire of a debate we did.

And he puts debate in quotes and that becomes important later, but he does call it a debate.

It was never a debate. And just for the record, I called him up on the phone before we did it and gave him the choice between a formal debate or a discussion and he wanted a discussion.

But now he claims it was me who wanted the, now that there's no evidence for it, he claims

I'm the one that wanted the discussion. He always wanted to debate. Just note, he's the one calling it a debate now, we're in emails that I have with him that I could always make public.

He said, it was not a debate. So he knows it's not a debate. So he's saying that the reason he puts it in quotes because it wasn't a debate, then call it what it was a discussion, which explains why when he said things and Aaron and I were asking for clarification, that's what you do in a discussion.

But as we're gonna read this email, you're gonna see he's gonna try to play the victim and be like, you were just cutting me off.

No, we were actually asking clarifying questions. That's what you do in a discussion. If it was a debate,

I wouldn't speak, you'd have a timer, right? And he's kind of crying and bemoaning because he didn't get to his eight pages of notes.

That was his choice. I mean, he could have sent his notes ahead of time so we knew what he was gonna say.

And then we could just get clarification before the show. Didn't wanna do that either. So, and just for the record,

I'm gonna be debating Michael Brown on the continuation of gifts. You know, we've both agreed to do, share our opening statements with one another.

Why? Because we're not trying to do a gotcha. We actually wanna have a good, honest debate and have it educational for people.

So we're not looking to do gotcha type things, right? That's the difference.

You only hide things when you're trying to do gotchas, in my opinion, as a debater. But he said,

I don't know who CW is, but he said CW, so I guess this is his response to something online.

But he said, CW should have posted this months ago, non -affirming

Christianity, pride, harsh criticisms, and words ahead. And so, and I'm gonna challenge you.

Our discussion goes back to October. I'll try to post the link to that show, but it was the, if you wanna search for it on our, either on the podcast or in the video on our

YouTube, it is an argument for gay Christianity. And it aired sometime in mid -October,

I forget when. And I see someone who just joined in the backstage.

Let me finish this and I will get to, oh, that person just dropped, so I may not get to them. All right, so here's what he wrote.

So friends, as some of you may remember, last year I had a quote, debate unquote, with striving fraternity ministries on what

I wanted to be a fruitful response of non -affirming Christianity. That is to show believers that gay people aren't selfish, lustful, disgusting, sexual monsters that much.

Now, let me stop there and just say, actually, when we look at it, he proved that his arguments were based on his selfishness because his whole argument was based on the fact that his lust that he had was what proves he's right.

So it's his own self that's interpreting this. So he used his selfish and lust to view everything through that lens.

Was he a disgusting sexual monster? Yeah, no. But I never actually made any of those claims that he is attributing to Aaron and I.

And just recognize who's the one being a little bit derogatory and bigoted in the comments.

He says here, of the conservative Christian faith believes we are to varying degrees.

I don't think that everyone that practices homosexuality is a selfish, lustful, disgusting sexual monster.

But I do think that many who prey on children and want to get their proclivities in the face of children as much as they possibly can, yeah,

I do think that they're disgusting sexual monsters when they're preying on children. Yeah, ask yourself why so many of them want to focus on children and not adults.

Hmm, it's their style of evangelism, shall we say. But he says, to do this,

I spoke with several ministers, my now boyfriend, my ex -boyfriend at the time, several

LGBT friends, dug into scriptures, devoted much time into prayer, and went in with eight pages of small print proofread notes which

I used, none of which I used just about. Okay, so let's engage with that.

He did send me his notes and I just, I'm gonna, just for the record, because we want to be honest,

I'm going to share really quickly on screen so that you can see whether these notes he's claiming are what he claimed they are.

So remember, as I share this, he described this, oops, let's see.

Did that show the right one? I showed the wrong one. Sorry, wrong screen. Stop sharing. Share screen, and it is this one.

There we go. All right, now, as we share that, it looks like an awful lot of white space.

Remember, he described this as eight pages. What is eight pages? Of small print. For the record, that's not small print, that's 10 -point font, which is actually typical print.

It's smaller than a 12 -point font, but if you're gonna say small print, that would be an eight -point font with double space.

Double space, which means this can fit in four pages. He's trying to make it sound like it's so much, and it's proofread, and none of it was gotten to.

Well, the reason none of it was gotten to was because he couldn't give clear definitions for words he was using, and we were trying to get clarification.

But we go on with his email here, and the reason I'm going through this is because I want you guys to see how to dissect an email when people say things so that you can learn how,

I mean, this is what we do in a project. We apply critical thinking. And so someone,

Bionic, is saying, do we seriously need an argument over what size is small print? No, but when we do need a discussion on what is honest, when someone is accusing someone of being dishonest, and they're the ones being dishonest, so yes, we do need to then.

Mr. Tracy is saying, I can't believe this guy is still upset with the discussion.

Well, I think it's because he failed to make his point in the discussion, and he's got to try to blame us.

That's my theory. But it is interesting because later on, as I kept dialoguing with him, he says that it's me who's upset.

I can't let it go. I didn't bring it up months later, just for the record.

This is October, so this is six months later. Yeah, but he says here,

I was really doomed from the start, and I want you to think about this, because there's a lot of things.

I say it's dishonest to say it was a debate when you know it's not, even if you put it in quotes, because you knew it was never a debate.

It was a discussion by your choice, and if you want to say, well, it wasn't my choice. Okay, you knew it was a discussion, but there's a lot of assumptions that he's going to assume, and I shared this with somebody today that I was going to discuss this, and they were like, it seems like he thinks you live rent -free in his head.

He thinks that all I do is study him all day. It sure seems that way, but we'll see if you guys come to that.

He says, I was really doomed from the start. The week before I was supposed to do it, I could not because I was dealing with a clergy abuse from a very suspect, not well -known church, so naturally,

I couldn't do it, and he did cancel. He never told me the reason he canceled. We didn't know until that day, and so we had to move it and do something else.

Never told us. He says, well, Andrew, the leader of SFE, gets on his live stream and scoffs at me that I had an argument for gay

Christianity that he never heard before.

That's how he depicted it to me. He told me that this was a view that all the people that, you know,

James White doesn't understand it, and that the people who argue for gay

Christianity, that it's different. Okay, so, you know, and if you look at the name of the episode, it was an argument for gay

Christianity. That's what he said he was gonna make. That's not scoffing, okay?

So he said that I read that sarcastically in a scoffing tone. Yeah, I might've been scoffing at a claim you made that I'm going, yep, and guess what?

It wasn't something I never heard before. It was something I had heard before. Andrew was my youth pastor for two years when

I was age 12 to 14. Okay, let's stop with that and say, is that true? No, he attended the youth group, but I was never his pastor because he never was a member of my church, but that could be just a difference of semantics.

That's granted because he could have just seen me as his youth pastor since I was the pastor when he came to the youth group.

Okay, so we could grant that. Very arrogant, couldn't be wrong, his way or no way, et cetera.

Well, folks who are regular here know that yeah, I correct myself all the time and anyone that shows that I'm wrong on something, it's usually the first thing we start off the next show with if you show me that I'm wrong on something.

So, sorry, but for someone who doesn't know the show and is coming to it with preconceived conclusions as he makes clear he thinks all

Christians think that don't agree with him, I can understand where he comes from with that. He said, I had thought 16 years could change someone, but there is no hope for some people with just time alone.

Okay, 16 years I have not interacted with him, by the way, that becomes important because he's gonna make claims as if I knew him, as if I've done nothing but follow him all these 16 years.

Nope, never gave him much of a thought. Sorry, I just have other things to do.

Maybe he doesn't. He says, next, next a week later, the quote debate unquote begins.

They start off with some conservative news trash about being pro -life and Republican, finishing by saying that the quote,

Democrats don't care about children when they're killing them unquote. I believe knowing full well that I am pro -choice.

Okay, let me stop there and say, how would I know that? I mean, would I have to make assumptions of him to know that?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'd have to do. And that's exactly what I don't do. So no, I had no idea he was pro -choice.

It was, we bring that up because every week, as you guys know, who are regular, we do in the news section, not every week, but most weeks, we'll do it in the news section, usually at the beginning of the show.

That's not unusual. It's what's ever in the news. So we picked up something that was in Christianity today that was in the news.

Surprise, we did what we always do. Talk about the news, wow. So he claims that that was, now notice the victim status that he applies to himself.

So he wants everyone to feel bad for him. Oh, he's being a big meanie. And he's saying that you can't be Christian and pro -abortion.

Yeah, that wasn't directed toward him at all. But in his mind, he thinks, oh, that's what it is.

It's all about me. Yeah, it's not all about him. But this is where the assumption, he assumes

I know this about him. So he says, I'm not going to defend abortion. I'm just going to simply say that it should be left, sorry,

I say that it should be left open as an option and government has no right to outlaw.

Okay, so government doesn't have the right to murder, to outlaw murdering of people, really?

So then why don't we just take murder off the books for every age? See, when you redefine it as choice and not murder, yeah, you can sit there and redefine things.

Oh, wait, that's what happened in the whole discussion. We got to a whole discussion of his redefinition of words.

Because he couldn't stick with definition of what lust is. As he had to redefine it to fit his whole theory of affirming

Christianity. It's all based on redefining language. We'll show that.

And you could go watch and that's what the discussion was over. So he says here, me and Jamie fired back with, well, the conservatives don't really seem to care about the same children when they're older and need food, clothing, and shelter.

Yeah, I don't know if I said it on the show, but it sure seems like it's the Christians that do a lot of the adopting.

And yeah, it's the pro -homosexuals that don't want Christians adopting people.

And then you're gonna claim that it's the Christians who don't? I think we did point out that it's the

Christians who usually are the first ones in to areas where there's either damages from nature or things like that.

It's Christians who go in typically first ones in. Organizations that at least started off Christian like Red Cross and Salvation Army, they started off Christian to go in and help people and proclaim the gospel.

Now they just do the helping of people. He says, thus began a torturous two -hour session of gish galloping, rapid fire nonsense, avoiding the question, asking over me or talking over me and bringing up topics that was never not even relevant to the discussion much.

Well, let's see what that is. So he claims that I was just going all over the place.

Folks, any of you who watch my debates or watch this program regularly, you know that I do not go all over the place.

I actually try to stick to just a few areas, two at most, maybe three passages of scripture so that we can hone in on that and really define things.

I don't jump all over the place. I actually let him jump all over the place. He was the one that was doing that and jumping to different things.

And all I did was put the passage together with another passage that he brought up, right?

And I brought up one that, I think I brought up Romans one and he brought up Corinthians and we looked at those and oops.

So when he's accusing me of actually doing what he said. Now, talking over him, what he means by that I think is we interrupted him to get clarification.

That's what you do in a fair discussion to make sure you're not misrepresenting someone, all right?

That you actually engage with them. But he didn't want that.

I think what he wanted was a monologue. He wanted to just come onto our program and just have a monologue where he could talk and not be interrupted.

But we actually wanted to engage with him. He says, bringing up a topic that's not relevant to the discussion.

The issue of lust is directly related to the issue of sex. And the argument for homosexuality is completely based on who you lust after.

Whether you lust after someone of the same sex or an opposite sex. So discussing the issue of lust is directly connected and directly relevant to the subject of gay

Christianity, of homosexuality, okay. So his next thing he says, his next paragraph. The first argument they brought up was the so -called, quote, no true

Scotsman fallacy, unquote. Basically that if you claim to be someone or something, then you can or cannot do certain things.

I .e. no true Scotsman can affirm homosexuality. Something I realize that they meant later.

More accurately, the statement should be, they don't believe any Christian should affirm homosexuality and nothing could change their mind.

The rest of the debate, without quotes, by the way, the rest of the debate bears this out.

Now, we were the ones who mentioned no true Scotsman fallacy. We defined it what it was.

And we were defining it in the context of when you have something that defines what a

Christian is or what an American is, then it's not the true

Scotsman fallacy. We never made the argument that you cannot be a

Christian because you practice homosexuality. That's what he's saying our claim was.

That wasn't the claim. We said that no true Scotsman fallacy would actually be that. Our claim was you can't be a

Christian unless God and his word is your ultimate authority. You have to repent from sin and turn to Christ.

And anyone who hasn't done that, who is living in a pattern of sin by God's definition of what a

Christian is, is not a Christian. So if you have someone who is making excuses for sin, they wouldn't be a

Christian. If they're making it a pattern of life and saying, calling sin not sin, then the by and they're redefining the

Bible to fit their sin, then that is someone who's not Christian. Why? Because the

Bible is not their authority. They are. Well, that fits the definition. There is a definition of what a

Scotsman is. Someone who is a citizen of the area of Scottish descent.

Right? If they, in fact, technically a Scotsman would be defined as anyone who owns land in Scotland.

I am a Lord in Scotland because I owned a little piece of land in Scotland. That makes me a

Lord of Scotland. So I could technically be a Scottish Lord. Why?

Because I fit the definition. So what he does here is he takes what we said and totally misrepresents it to say the very opposite of what was said.

And I'll note, he's in the chat right now and he's saying, you know, that I'm the guy that was in the discussion.

I'll post on my own channel, right? Where he has a monologue. He won't, why don't you come in here and have a dialogue again?

If you want to have a true debate, fine. Let's have that. But I bet he won't be willing to do a debate the way that I'm going to do with Michael Brown where we define our terms upfront, share our notes up with each other so that there's no gotchas.

I bet he won't be willing to do that one. Yeah. Because he doesn't have, the problem that we had was about definitions.

He says, next they went on to question me about lust. Well, I said why we questioned lust. He says, in Matthew five, where Jesus is speaking about exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, specifically

Matthew 5 .28. And let me just take a moment to read Matthew 5 .28 for folks.

I should have had this up already, but I didn't. It says, but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart.

Very well -known passage. This is the idea that he's saying, Jesus is saying here is just, if you lust after a woman, then you've already committed adultery.

So the point that I was trying to make with Anthony was the fact that if he lusts after men and I lust after women, can both of us commit the exact same sin?

That was where I was trying to go with that. I was also trying to say that the lust itself, just because you lust after someone doesn't make it something that you can say, well, it's okay because I lust after this person.

Well, no, just because lust itself is wrong, whether it's homosexual or heterosexual, just because you lust after someone doesn't justify having sex with them.

But this next line is what really was amazing. And if there's ever a point,

I mean, this shows the lack of logic. He says, then Aaron, the co -host says, we have to go beyond the

English and look to the Greek in said language. And the word desire and lust are the same.

So it's a sin essentially. Yes, that's exactly what you do with a

Greek text. That's exactly what you do. You look at the Greek. I don't know how else to do it.

Like Aaron was gonna come on and Aaron said, he did it, he's like, I don't know how we could describe this without being mocking.

And I said, there are times where mockery is necessary because this is a joke.

It really is. I mean, am I gonna argue that he's wrong? Am I gonna say, well, you're wrong because of what the

Arabic says? Should I take his words, translate it into Arabic and then answer that?

No, that would be foolishness. The Bible, the

New Testament was written in Greek. So we do not make arguments based on the

English if the Greek clarifies and the Greek does make it clear. But the

Greek doesn't make it clear for what he wanted to say. This is what you just saw for two hours with Dr.

Carl of what evolutionists do. Well, this is exactly what Anthony does. He comes with a conclusion and with his bias, he won't accept anything that doesn't support his conclusion.

He completely rejects what's clear. So he rejects the Greek or the

English because the Greek makes clear what the

English does not. And so he wants to just talk in English. So he says, the word in Romans one is exclusive an exclusive word, the normal word in Greek for desire and lust isn't strong enough.

Also, how does one having a word that can mean two different things prove that knowing

Greek is superior in the instance? That actually does prove it right there because knowing the

Greek gives you the what's that word? Context, that's how you know what a word means from its context.

And if you don't know the Greek and you're gonna make an argument over the English and someone else is giving you the

Greek and the context of the Greek and you're ignoring that for the translation, sorry, but then people can translate it any other word any other way, sorry.

And so, what do you see? You end up seeing that and here's gonna be the irony.

He's arguing right at this point, he's trying to argue for the English later he wants to argue for the Greek because I want you to see how he's arguing that, oh, well, we gotta look at the

English when it comes to the word lust. But then when it comes to the word homosexuality, he wants to use in Romans one, well, it's different there.

It will go on to read, he says, this was just another trick to trip me up.

So, looking to the Greek is to trip him up because he says that the word for lust in Matthew five is not the same word used in Romans 127.

Okay, the burning of lust for another. Okay, there are different words with a same meaning.

We have many words in English that are different words that have a same meaning, but the context makes it clear.

In both Matthew five and in Romans one, that lust was sinful.

The context makes that clear in English or in Greek. Okay, if you have to, and I think

I said this on the show to him is that if you have to ignore certain things of the Bible to make your case, then the problem you have is you're not being honest.

The Bible's not being your authority then. That's what would define you is whether you're a Christian or not. So, he says the word used in Romans one is exclusive word, not the normal word in Greek for a desire and lust, or lust isn't strong enough.

And also, how does only having one word that can mean two different things prove that knowing the

Greek is superior for this instance? So, sorry, I skipped that middle sentence earlier. You therefore have to look at the words around it and see what the context is.

That's exactly what we were doing. He says, English translations is this instance where much more detailed and descriptive.

So, his argument is the English is more descriptive than the original language it was written in. He said, to me proves limitations, not advantages.

They really didn't give me any chance to reply. It just went around in circles.

Homosexuality is lust and lust is homosexuality. No, actually it was homosexuality and all sexual sin is based on lust.

Lust is a sin, so it doesn't justify who you sleep with.

But he says, never gave him a chance. Now, I am gonna put this out to my listeners. I did not have the time this afternoon to go through the entire video, but go check that video.

I would love for somebody to go through the video and timestamp how often Aaron spoke,

I spoke, and Anthony spoke. Because I got, in the first hour, from the moment he came in and started his discussion, for the first hour of it that I timed, he spoke more than I think

Aaron and I combined, but we didn't give him a chance. So, in the first hour, we were giving him a chance to explain his view and we were just asking for clarification and the second hour, yes, that's where we're now answering him in things.

So, we're gonna speak more, but he still, as far as up to the point that I got, he still spoke more than Aaron or I, either one of us.

So, he says, we never gave him a chance to speak and yet he spoke more than we did. That's something we can measure.

So, I put the challenge out, folks. Go back, go on our YouTube channel or the podcast for Apologetics Live, find the episode called

An Argument for Gay Christianity, search that, somebody, do me the favor and time it.

Time the start and figure out the exact minutes that each of us spoke. That's something we could do and see whether he lied.

Now, it may have felt like we didn't give him a chance because he was frustrated every time we were asking him questions and he felt like he couldn't get on with his monologue, which obviously he prefers, that's why he's not here.

He knew that we were gonna discuss this. He's in the chat, he wants to do it on his own channel. Here's the challenge.

Hey, Anthony, will you invite me onto your channel? Will you allow me on your channel for equal time?

We gave you more than equal time. There's the challenge. Folks, if he's not willing to have me on, you know that he wasn't looking for a discussion.

He wasn't looking for that. He claims he wants a debate. We can do a formal debate, not a problem.

But you're gonna actually have to answer questions in the debate, not run round and round trying to avoid answering, which is what he did.

You can go watch it and find out. All right, the last paragraph. And so this is, folks, when you get people that make these things, this is what you have to do.

Don't just let emotions read this. And this is what he, you saw with him, it was all emotion.

He wasn't actually making arguments from the Bible. Now, granted, let's deal with it. He made an argument that a word, that there's a word for homosexuality that's only used there.

And he was saying that this is an abusive. The reason that Paul is using that is because there was an abuse of homosexuality.

But remember, and I don't have time to go through the whole argument, but you go back and look at it. What was the discussion?

He brought up a text that talked, that he said that this word is speaking of an abusive homosexuality.

And it mentioned two things, homosexuality and idolatry. So I brought him to another text that had both arguments.

They also talked about homosexuality and, you got it, idolatry.

So I asked him, and this is the thing, when you want to have a good discussion with someone, you give them something to think about.

And what you saw is when I gave him something to think about, the fact that if there is an abusive homosexuality, if that's what it's talking about, if the argument is that Paul was not condemning homosexuality, he was just condemning an abusive homosexuality, then why is he condemning idolatry?

Was that also abusive? If it's in the exact context, then it must be.

Now, first off, when you make an argument based on a word that only appears once in the

New Testament and make your whole argument based on that and ignore the way the word is used in any other

Greek literature, or the fact that it's not used in much Greek literature and therefore build a whole argument on that, that's called an argument from silence.

That's not the way to make an argument. And that's what you have here. He may, those who practice affirming

Christianity use this word and say, oh, see, this is, he's not really condemning homosexuality in the clearest text that describes it because he's really condemning the abuse of it.

Well, then there has to be an abusive idolatry as well. They're connected in the same, in both passages.

So he wants to say the homosexuality abusive, but he never had to think about the idolatry being abusive, but that's the context.

So did he ever answer that? No, he just ignored it. That we're playing games, tricks, trying to trip them up, debate tactics, throwing everything at them.

Oh yeah, like context, that's all we're throwing at them. So he says this in the last paragraph, there were only two other things worth mentioning that happened in the discussion.

Well, there he mentions his discussion. Other than the fact that Andrew boastfully took a stab at infant baptism, knowing

I'm Episcopalian. Okay, that assumption, here you go again, assumption, how do

I know he's Episcopalian? How would I know he's Episcopalian? I would have to follow him and I don't.

I have no idea, but notice the selfishness of him. He says, we don't think he's selfish. Well, you're proving it out,

Anthony, because you think that I live rent -free or in your head.

Like all I do is think about you. I had no knowledge he's Episcopalian.

I had no knowledge what his background is. You know why? He never said it. So making a comment about infant baptism, if I make any comment about infant baptism, it's not toward Episcopalians, it's toward Presbyterians.

Yeah, that's who. That's who I would refer to when I'm talking about infant baptism, which do have a view that they make it about covenants.

Because he says here, he said to prove it, you quote, have to chop up the Bible into covenants,

Old Testament and New Testament, dot, dot, dot, water was always a symbol of a covenant.

Now he never ended this quote, so I don't know where the quote supposedly ended. I guess it was the have to chop up the

Bible into covenants, I think is where the quote should have ended. But what we end up seeing is, he says water was always a symbol of the covenant.

Where? What covenant was by water? There's only one covenant that people make an argument is from water, and that's baptism.

The Old Testament covenant from Abraham was a cutting of the foreskin.

Water wasn't involved in that. So here he's putting things, claiming that I'm saying things that I didn't say.

And if he's trying to make the argument that water is a symbol of every covenant, that's not supported in scripture, okay?

The sign of the new covenant, by the way, is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So we go on, he says, the next thing I tried to bring up, basically the

Greek word in 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and 10, which I mentioned, Paul most likely coined it himself, and we can only guess what it means.

So we can only guess what it means. Think about this, his whole argument was based on an exact meaning of it being abusive.

But if we can only guess what it means, then it's not a strong argument. But again, if it is what he claimed it meant, and they're tied with that idolatry, then so should the idolatry be abusive in that text, but not in the

Romans text. You can't have it both ways, and that's what he wants. He can't be consistent.

So he goes on to say here, and I wanna make sure I didn't lose my place, okay.

Paul most likely coined it himself, can only guess what it means. Andrew brought up that Paul also gives us a word translated inspired, but most scholars agree that that is not the best rendering of the word.

It means breathed out by God. Yeah, that's exactly what inspired means. The word that we have in Greek for inspired is

God breathed. That's exactly what it means. So if he's claiming I didn't say that,

I'll have to go back and re -listen. I don't know where I didn't claim that, but yeah, that's not something that I claimed.

But to be inspired means God breathed it out. It's God's word. And so if Paul by inspiration writes something, it's

God's word, all right. I wanna, okay.

So the word translated, okay. Most scholars would not say that it's best rendered that way, okay.

It means breathed out by God. So that again does not really have anything to do with it.

I brought up the, and I don't know how that came in. To be honest, six months ago, I don't remember how every part of that discussion.

So I don't know how inspired was used in the discussion. I don't know why he's bringing it up. I don't know where it came in in the discussion.

He says, I bring up the fact that if Romans one and first Corinthians six, we're talking about the specific situation to condemn with certainty much of the human race.

Also nobody. And so what if it condemns much of the human race? The Bible condemns the entire human race.

So yeah, everyone. He says also nobody is defending that Christianity is compatible with anything else mentioned on that list.

Yeah, Christians don't argue that that long list of sins is compatible with Christianity, but we're not the ones make saying that it is compatible.

He was, we're just pointing out it's not because it's just, we don't have to go. If he wants to argue that gossips, gossiping is compatible with Christianity, we would talk about that.

If he wants to talk about slanders being, compatible with Christianity, then we would talk about that.

But those things aren't being challenged. They're challenging that the Bible's view on homosexuality.

So we're responding. He goes on, he says, we believe it is condemning abusive same sex practices that have to do with establishing power and dominance.

He bases that all based on the word that he says we don't really know about.

You see, there's nowhere in the Bible where it talks in talking about homosexuality, that it mentions abusing the homosexuals, that somehow an abusive practice, that it's establishing a power.

All of that is injected into the text. And then they wanna say, this is what the

Bible teaches. That's not, that is the exact same thing you just saw two hours of people, of Dr.

Karl proving with fraud, how people are doing fraudulent things by starting with the conclusion and then manipulating the evidence to fit the conclusion.

That's exactly what they're doing. So he goes on, he says, nobody is arguing that is compatible with religious faith that values loving anyone.

Now notice what he did. It's not about loving someone. You see, it's about the homosexuality.

It's not about love. It's not because of who you love that makes it the sin.

It's because of the lusting after someone who's not your spouse being man and woman.

That's a thing. You see, so they changed the definition of what it is. Like they changed what lust is.

They changed the definition of this argument, says it's all about love. I don't care who anyone loves.

Just because you love someone doesn't make it right. Sorry. So he says, again, they did not give me a chance to reply, folks,

I'm challenging someone here to go back and give me the timestamps. Please, someone do that, okay?

Because I tried to do it quickly. I did it at four times speed and I had three different timers so I could check it. But at my cursory look, he had in the first hour we gave him, he spoke more than Aaron and I combined.

And he claims we did not give him a chance to reply. If he was expecting a monologue, then yes, that would be true.

That's not how we do this show. He said, they just kept throwing things out and hiding behind my tech issues.

Anyone could listen and you'll see that we could not hear him. So yes, we stopped him and tried to address the tech issues because we wanted to actually hear what he had to say.

Oh, the meanies that we are. We're so mean that we wouldn't, we wanted to actually hear what he said.

That's not throwing things out because we never rejected any of his claims based on technical issues.

You see how someone who is so self -centered thinks everyone's against them. And all this is, wherever he posted this, it's all for victim status.

Oh, poor me, everyone feel bad for me, these big meanies. But as we're going through this, we're realizing much of what he said isn't true.

It's misrepresentations, lots of assumptions and outright lies. He says, ultimately stonewalling me.

Stonewalling him by letting him speak more than Aaron or I. That sound, woo, stonewalling.

He says, then finally, asked them, okay, well, what do you advise someone who wants to get out of homosexuality to do?

I said, I've done everything that Christians tell me to do going through conversion therapy, and they gave me the same answer.

Well, as long as you don't fully repent, you will never know what

God can do with your life. Okay, so let's deal with that.

Yeah, I say that to anyone. Someone comes to me and says, I can't stop lying. I just, I don't,

I'm not gonna fully, I'm never gonna stop lying. Well, I'm gonna tell them they need to repent.

If someone is in an adulterous relationship, if they're in my church in an adulterous relationship, they're under church discipline.

And if they refuse to break off that adulterous relationship, we're putting them out of the church as an unbeliever.

Why? Because their practice is not in line with what a

Christian would be doing. So we have to assume they're not a Christian. That's what Matthew 18 says to do.

That's the practice. That's what God says. So when someone is in sin, that's what you do.

If someone is going to continue practicing homosexuality, that's what you would do.

Someone struggling with a sin is different than someone who is justifying their sin. He's not struggling with sin.

He's justifying it. Cause he's trying to say the Bible accepts him as he is. You see, he's saying, oh, well, they're just telling me to do what everyone else said.

We're just telling you what God said. It's not us, it's God. Your beef is not with me, it's with God. It's your own conscience you have an issue with.

You wish God told you what you want him to tell you. You wish God would allow you to sin.

Hey, it'd be nice if he allowed me to sin. I didn't have to repent. But that's just not the way it is, right?

And so the reality is, I get it. He's deceived. He doesn't really recognize what he's saying because this is what

Paul says to Titus is that people can have a seared conscience. They've given themselves over to sin so much that their whole conscience is dampened.

And it doesn't have the effect that it should have of making people feel guilty. And that's what breaks my heart for people like this.

But the thing is that we can't tell you what to do beyond what

God says to do. But the fact that he hasn't given it up shows that he's never really repented of it.

There are people who do repent. And even though they may still have a desire for someone of the same sex, they do not go and have relations with people of the same sex.

They recognize they have to repent to abandon that. Okay?

So let's look at the final part of his thing. Now, and I want you to see how he, all of this is the conjecture in his own mind.

Then he goes, he goes, they were prideful, arrogant, immovable, and rapid fire blast the whole time.

Folks, please, somebody go and do the, it's a mathematical thing.

It's a measurable thing. See whether we are rapid firing, blasting him the whole time, or whether he had ample time to explain things.

We did ask for clarification. Most of the first hour we let him talk. Why? So he can explain his arguments.

And then we countered. And he spoke while we were countering. We didn't shut him off, but we asked him questions.

We challenged him. He didn't like that. So he calls that prideful, arrogant, immovable, and rapid fire.

So if it is prideful to disagree with someone, then he was prideful. If it's arrogant to disagree with someone, he was arrogant.

If it's immovable because you have positions, well, he didn't move from his position. You see the very things he's accusing of us, is what we could then turn on him.

We aren't the ones doing that though. Why use that language? Oh, because it makes you look like a victim.

So if people will come around you and say, oh, well, let's lift you up. Let's, you're a good guy. You did everything well.

I'm not looking to play the victim here. So why do I go through this? I go through this so you can see how you should dissect when people send you emails like this.

He says, this is an embarrassment to Christianity. Let me stop there and just say, no, an embarrassment to Christianity is someone like him who's taking what

God says is sinful and perverse and calling it God honoring.

That's embarrassing that Christians would, that anyone claiming Christ would allow that. That is a disgrace to the name of Christ.

So do I get upset with it? Yes, because of me? No, because I love my

Lord and savior. And I don't like people who discredit him and make him disgraceful the way that people like this do.

Trying to make him be part of a perverse behavior so that they could feel better about their sin.

He said, this is an embarrassment to Christianity, my friends, and let it not be named regularly among us.

This is my reply to the mess of a debate. No quotes around the debate, because he made an argument to me after this saying, the whole reason he puts it in quotes is because he knew it wasn't a debate.

Well, he didn't always put it in quotes. A mess of a debate that I had. And my final appeal was to the audience was that they could see the things.

And I pray that some people did. His appeal, and so that's the end of the letter. His appeal to the audience was my feelings.

He was coming into the debate to argue that Christianity supports can be coincide with homosexuality.

That was the argument he said he was gonna make. But what was his appeal?

That he hopes people feel better. That he hopes that people would feel about him.

His feelings don't matter. His feelings don't interpret the Bible, and his feelings are not the basis of how we interpret the

Bible. We look at what the Bible teaches, and then we gain our feelings based off that.

In other words, the Bible is what interprets our feelings. And if the Bible says our feelings are wrong, we repent. All right, so I went on a little bit longer than I hoped to get.

I guess Aaron was gonna try and come in. I told him I didn't know how far we'd go. I thought I was gonna just do this quickly, but I wanted to make sure

I read the whole thing. But this is how you end up having to notice things. You look at what he's saying and realizing much of the things, he's not being honest with himself because the things he's accusing us of are things he actually was doing.

The things he's accusing us are not true. Oh, so let me look at some comments here to see.

All right, so Melissa says she was late. Okay, Anthony says he's sitting here shirtless.

Well, he could have put a shirt on. He says a formal debate would be amazing. Okay, we could set that up.

I know exactly, if you don't wanna come on, you can come on Apologetics Live and do it. If not, we'll do it on Marvin's channel, that's fine.

He says, and yes, I'd love to have you on my channel. And before the meeting, you asked me which church

I go to. I don't remember doing that if I did, but when I think of infant baptism, I never think of Episcopalians.

Sorry, I think of Presbyterians. That's who I usually debate infant baptism with.

I'm not all that familiar with Episcopalians. So still more, it's assumption at best.

Jesse says, do not be deceived, 2 Corinthians 6, 9, and 10. Anthony said, all these types of arguments are ones

I have heard before, and it isn't following the flow of thought. Yeah, I could just read the scripture with the flow of thought and see whether he's,

Paul is making this in Romans 1 when he's saying, for the same reason he gave them over to degrading passions for their women exchanged the natural function that for which is unnatural.

In the same way also that the men abandon the natural function of the woman and burn in their desire toward another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own person the due penalty of their error.

Notice I did not interpret any of that. I read it and reading it is all it takes to understand that men with men and women with women are unnatural, that's the language used, perversion, worthy of the penalty of error, something is committing an indecent act.

That's what scripture says. There's no interpretation needed there. That's the flow of it. That is not a good thing in any way.

Last thing, Mr. Tracy says, winning a debate about living a life is sin in no way removes the fact that it is sinful.

Good point. All right, so with that, I know we went long, way long, sorry, but I hope that was helpful because there are times that you're gonna see people that make appeals like this.

So we will see, I know that Anthony says here that he'll have me on the show.

He's got my email, folks. He's now on record. They put it up so we see it here.

So there's no, wrong one or no, was there? Yeah, yes,

I would love to have you on my channel. You can see it there. He said it, a formal debate would be amazing.

There it is for the record. So if he doesn't invite me on, if he goes and talks about it in a monologue and doesn't invite me on, yep, then we know that was a lie.

If we set up a formal debate and he backs out, yep, then we know that that was a lie, just saying.

All right, so folks, I appreciate you coming in next week. What do we got for you next week? Next week is full preterism.

We're gonna be having a discussion on full preterism. The week after that, we will probably get to that view of 1

Timothy 2. There was a podcast sent to me that was very interesting, a very different view, and so we'll engage with that and see whether it fits with the context.

until next week, remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God, and we will see you next time.