Critical Thinking with Scott Weckerly

Okay. All right. So I'm Terry Camerizell here on behalf of Creation Fellowship Santee.

We're a group of friends who love to study God's Word and believe the Bible, when read properly, disproves

Darwinian evolution. We've been meeting on this online platform since May of 2020, and since meeting online, we've been blessed with 85 individual speakers.

Tonight makes 86, covering creation science, other theology topics, and even current events.

Our goal is to equip believers to be ready to share their faith. You can find most of our past presentations by visiting tinyurl .com

forward slash CFS archives. That's C like creation, F like fellowship,

S for Santee archives. Our guest tonight is Scott Weckerle of Mission Apologetics.

In addition to being an apologist, he is also an author and musician. Scott is the drummer for the

Ray Stevens Band. He's also a fellow graduate of Mike Riddle's Creation Apologetics training.

Tonight, we have him here for a lesson on thinking critically. If you have questions during his presentation, you can put them into the chat on Zoom or the comments on Facebook, depending on where you're watching, and we'll ask them during the live

Q &A at the end. With that, Scott, I'm turning it over to you. Thank you.

Okay, so we're going to talk about critical thinking and evolution tonight.

Now, most of you don't know me, so I'll just let you know that I live in – my home is in Nashville, Tennessee, and there's my family.

I'm the cute one in the middle, in case you can't tell. And my home is in Nashville, but I have a wife and three daughters, so I actually live in drama land.

And, you know, when you live with people, you get to know them really well. When they come home, kick off their shoes, change their clothes, take their makeup off, you know, you get to know them the way they really are.

And this is how I see my family, because I know a lot about how females operate, but I don't understand any of it.

Not a lick. So, unfortunately, tonight we're going to talk about something that's easy to understand, and that's critical thinking.

Excuse me. And we are going to – we're going to hit some topics, and our topics are going to be the critical thinking questions.

We got – this is in the way. I'm sorry. Let me move this.

That's better. The critical thinking method. We got three critical thinking questions we're going to go over.

We're going to have a power question. We're going to talk about critical thinking and fossils. Fuzzy words and magic words.

I'm sure you remember all those from English class. Everybody had fuzzy words and magic words, right?

And red flag words. And then we're going to talk about some common challenges. Now, we want to master these challenges.

By the time we're done tonight, I want you to be able to state the three critical thinking questions.

We want you to be able to state the key words in the power question. There's only two key words. I think you can get those.

We want to give you – we want you to be able to give an example of a fuzzy word and state a question you would ask if you were confronted with the concept that antibiotic resistance is proof of evolution.

So, the opening thing is what is critical thinking? Critical thinking is the process of analyzing questions and assumptions.

It's a way of deciding whether a claim is true or false, and it can reveal unfounded biases hidden in statements and claims.

Now, 2 Corinthians 10 tells us that the weapons of our warfare are not worldly, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

And the ideas of evolution and millions of years are a stronghold. These are things that people hang on to so that they don't have to be responsible to God.

And they always want to claim that the conversation is science versus faith.

The evolutionists claim we have science, you just have faith. But our critical thinking questions are going to show that that's not really the case.

We're going to emphasize the difference between the two types of science. There's operational science, observational science.

It's testable, repeatable, falsifiable. And then there's historical science, origin science.

This has to do with past events. And these past events are not observed. They're not repeatable, and they require interpretations that come from your presuppositions and your worldview.

And we're going to point out this difference because they don't like to point out the difference. I even had an old earth friend of mine at church that said, but Scott, you guys, the young earth people are the only people that make this distinction.

I said, well, we're not the only ones that make the distinction, but we're the only ones that emphasize it because it's a factual thing and it supports our case.

You old earth people don't want to emphasize this because it weakens your position. So we're going to challenge this.

The typical method is when you have a conversation with an evolutionist is that you're going to focus on the evidence.

And we want to go a little bit deeper than that. We're going to learn to ask questions that focus on analyzing the statement to reveal the biases and the presuppositions within.

We're going to make the nonbeliever accountable for their claims and their statements. We're going to learn to ask challenging questions.

They're not used to being challenged. They're used to, you know, making an evolutionary claim and not be challenged.

And we're going to show that some very simple questions can challenge that position. And it comes from Proverbs 26, 4 and 5.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, wise in his own conceit.

So here's the three critical thinking questions. Now, normally, I would interact with people and pick out people from the audience to be responsible for these.

But you can just kind of group yourself, you know, choose. I need three volunteers. So you can be either a number one volunteer or two or a number three.

And you can just answer in the privacy of your own home there. So the first question is, has it ever been observed?

So every time we think about these questions, we're going to do, has it ever been observed?

The number one question is, has it ever been observed? Number two, are you making any assumptions?

If they didn't observe it, then there's assumptions going on. Number three, how do you know it's true?

If you didn't observe it and you're making assumptions, then how do you know this is true? Not hard questions, are they?

They're very simple. So let's see how they apply. Life originated in a pool of chemicals about 3 .7

billion years ago. Number one question, has it ever been observed?

Well, no, there was nobody there 3 .7 billion years ago to observe it. So the question number two, are you making any assumptions?

Well, yeah, if nobody was there to observe it, then it's got to be an assumption. So number three, then how do you know it's true?

Here's another one. Life ultimately is a material process that arose from a non -living material system spontaneously, and at least once in the remote past.

Wow. So question number one, has that ever been observed? Things arriving from a non -living material system spontaneously?

Anybody observe that? No, that's never been observed. I'll just throw in a no so you know we're listening.

Okay, thank you. Number two, are you making any assumptions?

Well, yeah, if nobody's there to observe it, there's assumptions involved. So number three, how do you know it's true?

Here's another one from a textbook. Scientists do know that about 200 to 300 million years after Earth cooled enough to carry liquid water, cells similar to modern bacteria were common.

Well, question number one, has it ever been observed? I know some old people, but I don't think they were there 200, 300 million years ago.

So it's not been observed. So number two, are you making any assumptions? Yeah.

So number three, how do you know it's true? See how powerful these questions are?

So just as a review, number one question, has it ever been observed?

Very good. Are you making any assumptions? Yes. How do you know it's true?

There you go. That's our three main critical thinking questions. Now we have a power question.

This one's really good because it really gets down to that distinction that they want to make. Show me any observational evidence for evolution that does not require me to use faith.

Isn't that good? There's two main words in this power question. The first one, see if you can pick it out.

Observational. Show me any observational evidence for evolution that does not require me to use faith.

Those are our two main words of our power question, observation and faith. So let's try one.

Over millions of years, creatures without backbones evolved into fish. So we can apply the power question.

Can you show me any observational evidence of creatures without backbones evolving into fish that does not require me to use faith?

See how powerful that is? Humans evolved from ape -like creatures. Just use the power question.

Can you show me any observational evidence that humans evolved from ape -like creatures that does not require me to use faith?

Here's one. Life must be on other planets. It's arrogant to believe we're the only life in the universe. Again, the power question works very well.

Can you show me any observational evidence for life on other planets that does not require me to use faith?

Very versatile. So here's a little bit about biology.

Darwin's finches, the famous thing that Darwin used for natural selection.

All these different kinds of beaks that changed on the finches on the islands there in the

Galapagos. Interesting thing is, what did they start with?

We started with finches. What do we end with? We end with finches. There's variations within the kind, but there's nothing that changed the birds into something else.

Again, the peppered moths. Remember that from the textbook? You know, before the industrial evolution, there were mostly white moths and very few dark moths because the dark moths were easier for the birds to see and they would eat them first.

And then after the industrial revolution, when they had a lot of soot and things, the dark moths were easier to hide and the white moths stood out.

And so then there were fewer white moths than there were black moths. But is that evolution?

That's not evolution. That's just a change in population because you started with dark moths and light moths.

You ended with dark moths and light moths. You just had different numbers. There's not even a change within the kind there.

Bacteria resistance. Same kind of thing. You've got bacteria. We use antibiotics.

Over time, some of these bacteria can become resistant to the antibiotics, but there's two points there.

One, you start with bacteria. You still got bacteria. They haven't changed into anything else.

Natural variation within them that the antibiotic was ineffective. Usually it's because people don't take their antibiotic all the way to the end, and that's what's causing it.

Right. But you're starting with bacteria. You're ending with bacteria. It's just a change in population.

So now we're going to talk about critical thinking question in relation to fossils. Fossils are the big thing.

Oh, yeah. With evolution, we got all these fossils. How much of the fossil was actually found, and how much was added or assumed?

Most people don't realize that when they find fossils of creatures, it's very rare to have the entire creature, the fossil of the entire creature.

You just get bits and pieces. Like on the example there on the screen, we've got some yellow spots. Those are the parts of the fossil that were actually found.

The rest of it was added or assumed. The cover of Time magazine, same thing with the head there.

The part that looks like bone is all they found. The rest of it was added in. So we've got an example.

You know, they tell the story about modern whales. For instance, modern whales are descendants of four -legged land animals.

And then you've got these drawings. They always have drawings. They never have photos. They have drawings.

If they had something they could take a picture of, they would take pictures of. This was a big deception.

Pakicetus, a candidate for whale evolution. You've got this cover of Science magazine, and they've got this drawing of a supposed candidate for whale evolution.

You know how much of that fossil that this picture was based on? The darkened portions of that fossil right there.

A little bit of the cranium, some teeth, and part of the jawbone. And from that, they get a whole creature that's swimming.

About eight years later, they found more of Pakicetus. And they had to admit that Pakicetus was actually a wolf -like animal with legs capable of running.

Nowhere close to the artist's rendition. Now, the sad thing is they put that claim of a transitional form on the cover of the magazine.

But when they find this and admit that, okay, that wasn't correct, that doesn't make the cover.

And so it becomes a deception because people see the cover, but they seldom read the article way back in the magazine that say, oh, yeah, by the way, we were wrong on that.

What about Lucy, the famous human ancestor, supposed human ancestor?

Lucy was discovered in 1974. About 40 % of the fossil was found, which was quite a bit. Claimed to be three and a half million years old.

Claimed to be bipedal, means walks on two legs. Here's one of the drawings from a science book.

This is the feet of Lucy. Here's a statue from St. Louis. See the very human foot on that statue?

Now, here's the bones of Lucy that we found. What do you notice that's missing on Lucy's, on the bones that we found?

Here's the statue they made. There are no foot bones in there.

No foot bones at all. So how do they know that Lucy had human feet? They don't know.

They put that in there because it was convenient for them. Professor Betsy Schuman, evolutionist expert, admits that the statue's feet probably are not accurate, but when asked whether the statue should be changed, she says, absolutely not.

Why not? Because it fits the story she wants told. Now, the other thing they did with Lucy to really make it look human, on the way to becoming human, was the eyeballs.

Did you notice she had white eyes? Whites in her eyes, the sclera. Most primates do not have whites in their eyes.

Sometimes the infants, about 15 % of the infants, will have whites in their eyes, but as they age, it grows darker.

So that was, again, a definite deception to try and make it look like it was becoming human.

So here's our fossil summary. How much of the fossil was actually found, and how much was added or assumed?

Here, we'll take a little pop quiz. Here's our power question. Show me any observational evidence for evolution that does not require me to use faith.

Observational and faith, those are the important words. Now, our three critical thinking questions. Do you remember those?

What's the first one? Has it ever been observed? Good.

The second one, are you making any assumptions? And the third question, how do you know it's true?

Now, a lot of times in conversations, you know, it may not make sense to ask the questions in these orders.

You can start with number two, you know. Somebody would make a claim and it's like, whoa, aren't you making an assumption there?

Well, what do you mean? Well, was that ever observed? No. Well, then how do you know it's true? You can kind of mix and match them if the conversation lends to it.

Now, we're going to get to the fun stuff. This is fuzzy words and magic words, those famous words that they forgot to teach you in English class.

Fuzzy words, these are words that deal with what happened. Things like we believe, we think, must have, could have, might have, our opinion is, we guess, over millions of years.

These are the types of phrases that are found in scientific articles and books all the time, even museum displays.

And it usually doesn't say we believe, it's like, you know, scientists believe, scientists think. And this is, they have these phrases in there because they have no observational evidence.

They're trying to describe what happened, but they don't have observational evidence, so they have to use fuzzy words to cover it up.

Here's some examples out of a grade seven science book.

Paleontologists think that Archaeopteryx and today's birds descended from some kind of reptile, possibly from a dinosaur.

Where's the first fuzzy word there? You pick it out? Think that.

Yes, very good. Think that. Paleontologists think that Archaeopteryx and today's birds descended from some kind of reptile, possibly from a dinosaur.

Do they really know where the birds came from? Not at all. This is out of a

USA Today article. There are likely tens of billions of Earth -like planets in our Milky Way galaxy.

In fact, the nearest Earth -like planet may be only 12 light years away. And with a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, our entire universe must contain billions of Earth -like planets.

That's a very common kind of claim. So where's the first fuzzy phrase? There are likely tens of billions.

There are likely. How about the next one? Maybe the nearest

Earth -like planet may be only 12 light years away and must contain our entire universe.

It must contain billions of Earth -like planets. There's no observational evidence there at all.

Here's another one. The first cells could not have needed oxygen to survive. They probably were heterotrophs that used the chemicals in their surroundings for energy.

And at some point, some of the cells may have developed the ability to make their own food. Pick out fuzzy words there?

How about could not have needed? How do they know they could not have needed? Were they there to observe it?

No. They probably were heterotrophs.

Probably. And some of the cells may have developed the ability.

Here's one from the Big Bang. Imagine that infinitesimal fluctuations in density were present in the early universe.

The expansion of the universe must have exerted a stabilizing influence on such irregularities. The expanding universe has the effect of greatly impeding what otherwise might have been catastrophic forces.

Nevertheless, the process of growth of fluctuations went on for a very long time. Boy, that's a mouthful, isn't it?

Where's the first fuzzy word? The very first word. Imagine. Imagine.

What's the rest of it? That's all imagination. But they have more.

The expansion of the universe must have exerted a stabilizing influence. Must have.

Might have been catastrophic forces. And went on for a very long time.

The whole thing is meaningless. Now, those are the fuzzy words.

They're about what happened. Now we're going to talk about how it happened. And these are the magic words. Words like appeared, emerged, arose, gave rise to, was on the way to becoming, burst under the scene, evolved itself, was making a transition to.

Here's some examples. Out of USA Today. Evo -devo. Now, that's a shorthand for evolutionary development.

They don't like to have to write that all the time. It's too long. So they shorthand it to Evo -devo. Evo -devo proposes that genes involved in cobbling together flesh and bone during early growth were repurposed to develop new structures throughout evolution's history by combining their functions in new ways.

Wow. So what's the first magic word? Proposes.

How about another one? You find it?

Repurposed. And evolution's history.

Now, the biggest word in there is repurposed. How do you repurpose something?

Can you go home? Why don't you go home tonight and repurpose yourself to a new creature?

No, you can't repurpose something. Oh, and in their ways, combining functions in new ways.

Forgot about that one. Here's another sample. The 185 million -year -old specimen is a sauropodomorph, a category of plant -eating dinosaur that stood only four feet at the shoulders and could walk on its hind legs.

They evolved into sauropods, such as the apotosaurus. What's the first magic word there?

185 million -year -old specimen. Millions of years. Covers all kinds of things.

It's when they don't know, they've just put millions of years there, because after all, if you give it enough time, anything can happen, right?

That's the claim. But that's never been observed. They evolved into sauropods.

Really? Well, how did that happen? They don't know. Into this world came the dinosaurs, initially small bipedal carnivores, and they rose to dominance at some point during the

Triassic. What's the first magic word there?

Into this world came. Really? Does that tell you anything scientific?

Into this world came? Nothing scientific there. They rose to dominance.

They rose. OK. They got up. OK. So now we've got some red flag words.

Danger, danger. Anybody recognize the robot there? Lost in space? Back in the 60s?

Will Robbins. Yes, Will Robinson. Yes.

Here's some red flag words. All, everybody, no real scientist. I believe, I think, truth, fundamentalist, intolerant.

Now, the first three, express and absolute. These are basically logical fallacies or appeal to the majority.

The third one, no real scientist is its own. It's the no true

Scotsman fallacy. I believe, I think, truth.

These express a personal idea. And fundamentalist and intolerant, they're used to label an opponent.

That's when you know you're getting to them. When they start calling you names, that's because they've run out of ammunition.

It's a logical fallacy. It's called an ad hominem attack, when they're attacking the person instead of the argument or the topic at hand.

Here are some examples. All real scientists believe in evolution. Not just scientists, all real scientists.

That's the no real Scotsman fallacy. It's a logical fallacy.

All real scientists. I'm sorry, Dr. Lyle is a real scientist, but he doesn't believe in evolution.

Everyone knows the Bible is just a book of stories. That's an appeal, faulty appeal to the majority.

And it's easily refuted. Everyone knows the Bible. Wait, I don't know that.

So I just proved you wrong, because that's not everyone. And on top of that, did you talk to everyone? How do you know everyone knows the

Bible? It's just a book of stories. You don't. No one has the whole truth.

Ah, does that include you? Yeah. People should decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Okay, I decide that you're wrong. So there, that's the whole truth.

That's my truth. Why are Christians so intolerant?

That's when they start, that's an ad hominem attack. That's when you know you're really getting to them, because they're attacking you personally.

Because they're used to, they like to attack people personally, because a lot of people will back off because of that.

Well, I don't want them to think I'm intolerant. I don't want them to think I'm mean. Notice, intolerance will not be tolerated.

Self -refuting is a good cartoon. Parents, don't let your kids grow up to be biblical creationists.

We need them to believe in evolution so they can become competent scientists and engineers for the future.

What's the ad hominem attack in there? He's attacking people, claiming that if you don't believe in evolution, then you can't be intelligent.

You can't be a competent scientist or an engineer. And we know that's false, because yeah,

I wouldn't want to grow up to be like an incompetent scientist, like Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon and Louis Pasteur and Johann Kepler and Wernher von

Braun and Michael Faraday and what's his name, Damanian that invented the

MRI. Oh, yeah. Now, defining terms.

The other big important thing when you're talking with anybody, really, but especially when you're talking about an evolutionist or evolutionary things, is you need to define your terms, because evolution has a lot of meanings.

And if one person is talking about evolution, I see evolution happening in my lab, it's a fact, and he's talking about variations of a kind, and you're thinking he's talking about molecules to man, well, then you're not going to have a very good conversation, because you're mixed up on your definitions.

And this is one of the classic twisting of meanings of words.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation. When the meaning of the word is shifted in the course of an argument, we observe evolution, therefore, evolution must be true.

Using two different definitions for evolution, we observe evolution changes within a kind, like with dogs, different varieties of dogs, therefore, evolution, molecules to man, must be true.

I had a friend of mine that threw that at me. He's like, he didn't put it exactly that way.

He said, I can't believe you don't believe in evolution. We see evolution all the time.

And I said, my friend, I'll call him Ray. I said, Ray, what do you mean by evolution?

You know, you're committing a logical fallacy there. What do you mean? You're using two different definitions of the word.

You say, I can't believe you don't believe in evolution. You're talking molecules to man, which I don't believe that.

And then you're claiming that we see evolution all the time, variations within a kind.

Of course, I believe in variations in a kind. That's an observational thing.

But molecules to man, that's never been observed. And I don't believe that. They like to play with words.

Richard Dawkins, well, evolution has been observed. It's just it hasn't been observed while it's happening. What? I'm not so sure that Mr.

Dawkins understands what the word observation means. They like to twist the words, and you just need to be careful and watch for that.

You know, the whole idea that nothing created everything. Because nothing is actually something.

Well, now you're just destroying the meanings of words. If it's nothing, it's nothing.

Define the word nothing. Define it, you know, something. Don't let them pull those kinds of tricks on you.

So here's a couple of challenges. Do you believe in evolution? How many think the good answer to that question is yes?

How many think the answer is no? Well, if you say yes, you're wrong. You say no, you're wrong.

Well, how can that be? Because you don't know what the definition of evolution he's using. The best thing to say if he says, do you believe in evolution?

The best response is define the word evolution. What do you mean by evolution?

Are you talking molecules to man? Are you talking variations within a kind? Two totally different things.

Why don't you believe in science? My friend Ray did the same thing. He's like, I can't believe you don't believe in science.

And I said, Ray, define the word science. No. He literally told me no.

I said, what do you mean? You're not going to define the word science? No. He didn't want to define the word science because he knew that if he did that, he'd be limiting himself on what he could claim later.

They want to use science as a big term without defining it so that through the course of the conversation, they can do little gotcha things because you didn't define what the word meant.

So why don't you believe in science? Best response is please define the word science.

We need to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Here's another challenge.

Do you take the Bible literally? Do you say, yes, you're wrong?

You say, no, you're wrong. Well, how can that be? Because the Bible, because we need to read the

Bible and take it literally where it's meant to be taken literally and take it figuratively where it's meant to be taken figuratively.

Oh, so you just pick and choose. No, I don't pick and choose. I let the text tell me whether it's to be taken literal or taken figuratively.

When I'm in the book of Psalms, it says this is a Psalm of David, then I know this is not a literal historical thing.

It can make references to historical things, but it doesn't mean that the account is a historical account.

And when I'm reading in the book of Genesis, and it says Job begot Fred, he begot John, he begot, that's not very poetic.

That's an historical record, and I take that literally. So we take the

Bible literally where it's meant to be taken literally, and we take it figuratively where it's meant to be taken figuratively.

And we do that by understanding the context. Dinosaurs evolved into birds.

What questions could you ask? How about the power question, right?

Can you show me any observational evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds that does not require me to use faith?

God. Yes. This is Robin, and I can speak because it's my meeting.

I literally had somebody tell me this just about a week ago. Yeah? Yes.

And he said it with such conviction, and I didn't know what to say. So thank you for this.

You're welcome. Yeah. And you can also use the three critical thinking questions there.

You could say, well, has that ever been observed? Well, no.

Nobody was there to observe it. So question number two, are you making any assumptions? See, if you didn't observe it, you're making assumptions.

So then three, how do you know it's true? So mastering the challenges, let's see how we do,

OK? Who can state the three critical thinking questions?

Let's do it together, OK? Question number one, has it ever been observed?

Question number two, are you making any assumptions? And question number three, how do you know it's true?

I know that you all got them right, didn't you? Who can state the two key words in the power question?

The first one, can you give me any observational evidence for evolution that does not require me to use faith?

Observational and faith, those are the key words in the power question. Give an example of a fuzzy word.

Anybody think of one? Right, we believe, we think, must have, could have, might have, we guess,

OK? Fuzzy words. How about magic words?

It appeared, it emerged, arose, gave rise to, was on the way to becoming.

Repurposed. Repurposed, very good, very good. Thank you.

What question could you ask somebody if they said, well, antibiotic resistance is proof of evolution? One question you could ask is, how is that proof of evolution?

You start with bacteria, and you end with bacteria. It's still bacteria. It's just a different population of bacteria, because some of the bacteria was resistant to antibiotics.

Some of it was not. It just changed population. OK. So that's all

I have. Now I guess we get to open it for questions, right? That's all you have?

Yeah. Is that not enough? I'm going to definitely be watching this again, because my memory isn't what it always is.

And there's a lot of, I joined an astronomy club here in town, and I'm going to be using a lot of this.

Good. Go ahead, Terry. OK. So we do have a few questions.

Yes, that was finished earlier than I was expecting, but fortunately, I was sitting right here.

Well, thank you for not leaving and walking out on me. So yeah, we do have some questions, both in Zoom and on Facebook.

So let's start with this one. Back a while ago, you had a slide about heterotrophs.

And so in Zoom, Robin just wanted to know, what are heterotrophs? Heterotrophs. Yeah, it was actually defined in the statement and that a heterotroph is an entity that has to feed off of other things, as opposed to be self -contained.

Like a liberal? Yeah, or a parasite. Same difference.

Yeah. Yeah, if you go back to that, I mean, I could go back to that slide.

I don't remember exactly where it is, but it's actually defined in the thing.

Do you want me to go back to it? If you just turn off the play and leave the

PowerPoint up, we can find that slide. You know, just do unplay.

OK, I didn't have it in play. I was controlling each slide. Oh, really?

Oh, OK. So should I? Go back and find it, yeah.

OK, go back and find it. It was pretty early on.

There it is. They were probably heterotrophs that use the chemicals in their surroundings for energy.

That's what a heterotroph is. It uses the chemicals in their surroundings for energy. And so at some point, some of the cells may have developed the ability to make their own food.

OK, thank you. Yeah. OK, so next question.

What would you tell someone who says the early Earth was different? The early

Earth was different. Well, what do you mean by that?

OK, so then I answered correctly. I have an answer. I would ask them, who observed that the early

Earth was different? Oh, that would have been better, way better. That's very good. That's very good.

You know, because biblically, we think that the pre -flood world was different than the post -flood world.

So that's why I was kind of going for, you know, OK, the early world was different. What do you mean?

What was different? What types of things were different? And biblically, we have a consistent answer, because God observed it.

Yes, right. And that's the point. We have someone. We have the word of someone who was there.

We can trust the creation account, because he was there. Yes. He gave it to us.

OK. All right, on Facebook, this maybe is more of a comment than a question.

But Brian says, there's a difference between adaptation, microevolution, and macroevolution, goo to man.

We see adaptation all the time, but can never see or observe the macroevolution.

And that's what I've taught my kids, Brian says. OK, that's fine. Yeah, the terms macroevolution and microevolution are fairly common.

I stay away from them, just because I don't want to use the term. But microevolution would be conditions within the macro.

Wait, Scott, you're breaking up your network. I'm sorry? You said you stay away from the term micro, macroevolution, and then micro.

Right, I stay away from micro and macroevolution, those two terms. I prefer to call it the variation of a kind, which is the definition of microevolution.

And then the macroevolution, I refer to it as molecules to man evolution, just because I don't want to fall into their categories,

I guess. I don't know. I think it keeps a better distinction. But I mean, those are fine terms.

Because they would like you to fall into the trap of the fallacy of equivocation, right?

Changing the definition of the word evolution. I think you had a slide about that also.

You said the word evolution. So therefore, you believe in evolution, even though you said microevolution.

So I think I agree with you. That is varying kinds. What did you say? Varying? Variation within kinds.

Variation within kinds. Thank you. Yeah. That's what I like to use, rather than microevolution.

Yeah. And Brian is adding that, that he doesn't use evolution so much as adaptation.

OK. And he's also thanking you for the presentation. Oh, well, thank you. And then

Robin says on the slide about great faith, could it be that people repeat the lie so often they believe it?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's a very kind of an established thing.

I mean, they use it in politics all the time. If you tell a lie often enough, people end up believing it.

I feel like I've heard that quote attributed to a very sinister person in history,

Karl Marx. Yeah. Yeah. I was kind of being funny in that.

What's his name? Who was the guy, Charles Dawkins? Was he the one? Yeah, Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins. That's it, yeah. That he didn't know the meaning of observation.

And what he said kind of blew my mind. I'm like, how do you glance over that?

You're this famous, intelligent person, and you don't know what observation means. Yeah. I mean, he basically refutes his self.

It's self -refuting. Yeah. His statement was. And it's a mind -boggling thing.

But that goes to show how strong your presuppositions and your worldview are.

He's just so convinced that his presupposition, that there is no God and that evolution is true, that he will say things that are irrational in defense of that and not even realize what he's saying.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm processing.

As I also am waiting for more questions, but we're not getting a lot. So maybe if we shut down and then.

Oh, okay. I got another question. So let me see. Let me preview it real quick.

Okay. So in Zoom, we have a question. It says, I've always wondered why some dinosaurs were so big when very few creatures today are as big.

I've heard some evidence has been found to support the atmosphere was supercharged with oxygen, allowing plants and creatures to develop enormously big, but then other studies have found evidence that isn't true at all.

How do you approach researching certain claims or findings when so many seem to have opposing finds?

Yeah. As far as researching it, you know,

I would, I would go to trusted sources and see what the latest thinking is on that. I mean,

I remember over the years, you know, they, they, they thought the pre -flood world was such that they not only the oxygen level, but also the, the air pressure because they didn't think that things like pterodactyls could fly in today's atmospheric pressure.

And I'm not sure that, that, that people still hold that position.

I haven't read up on that much lately, but I would, you know, check trusted sources, you know, things like, like you know, answers in Genesis has lots of great articles on things.

Creation .com has lots of great articles, you know, people like, like Dr. Lyle and things and see what the latest research is on that because our creation models do change over time.

We don't change the fact that God created in the biblical sense in six days and all that, but the models that we use to try and understand how some of those things occurred, the models do change, you know, the, there was the, the, the water vapor canopy was a very popular model for years.

And now it's kind of fallen out of favor because they've found things within that model that, that probably wouldn't work very well.

And so that most of today's creation scientists don't really hold to the water vapor canopy anymore.

And they've moved on to different models for that. As far as the creatures growing so large, there are reptiles today that continue to grow their entire life lifespan.

You know, since dinosaurs were probably reptiles, the belief is that they just continued to grow through their entire lifespan.

And if they had longer lifespans and they could reach incredible sizes, but I would just try and stay up to date.

You know, the websites, ICR has a great magazine with the accent facts that comes out every month, which is free.

You can sign up for it for free. I've been getting it since I was in college and, you know, it started out as a little pamphlet pamphlet kind of thing.

And now it's a full fledged magazine size. But that's excellent. Cause they're always, they got do so good, such good research there at ICR.

And so, you know, you just have to read and keep up on those things and see what the latest thinking is in the creation community.

And I would add like that's part of being a good steward of our resources. You know, we think of stewardship.

A lot of times we think of finances, but it's not just that it's all of the, all of the tools and the resources that God has given us.

So we want to be good stewards of our, of our minds and also of the information.

And, and it isn't like you said, it isn't that, that science has changed or that or that the truth has changed.

But as we get more access to more powerful tools, like the fact or soft tissue big, that was a, you know,

I mean just within the last couple of decades, we've had some major wins for creation science because, because of that.

And then also with the James Webb space telescope, you know, those are, that gives us access to see more information.

So it's not that, that, that, that the science has changed necessarily, but it's that we have more ability to see new things.

And so we can put it into better perspective and, and also the importance of peer review that, that, you know, when scientists, if, if scientists are disagreeing, it's, it's important to know, you know, which is the biblical, biblical principle that you have other witnesses who will corroborate the work that you've done.

So, so that's one thing to, to, to keep in mind. I think, okay.

We do have another question from Cassandra. What do I say to someone who tells me they want to have a conversation about origins, but I am not allowed to use the

Bible as my reference. Yeah. Well, several things.

One would be first of all,

I'm not going to the, the Bible is the foundation of my thinking in my starting point.

I'm not going to give that up. I mean, that's the whole point of the conversation. So I would not do that.

And number two, what are you going to give up? Are you going to give up your belief in evolution as we have this concept conversation about origins?

You're not going to give that up. So why should I have to give up my foundation? And that's good.

That was good. Well, you know, my buddy, my buddy Ray, he used to do stuff to that, like that to me all the time.

He would come up to me. Oh yeah. Well, let's talk about this, but, but, you know, you got to leave the Bible out of it. You need to show me that this is true without using the

Bible. And I would go, okay. And try it and couldn't figure out why I was frustratingly, not getting anywhere in the conversations with you.

And then, you know, when, when

Dr. You know, I mean, Dr. Lyle, I love Dr. Lyle. You know, his ultimate proof of creation book.

And in the worldview and the truth of Proverbs 26, four and five. That, you know, don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him, answer him as his folly deserves.

Lest he be wise in his own conceit. I was, I was. Part, I was, you know, answering the fool according to his folly.

And when I stopped doing that and had had this conversation, my friend

Ray. The entire conversation changed. And, and I pointed out that he was, you know, committing logical fallacies, you know, with the equivocation with the, you know,

I can't believe you don't believe in evolution, you know, all those kinds of things at one point, it was really funny because he said, well, you know, it's good that you've been studying, you know, logical logic and fallacies and things, but you shouldn't use that against people.

Why not Ray? If you're not going to be rational, you're not going to be logical. Why are we having this conversation?

You know, and you know, the Bible needs to be our foundation.

That's our starting point. God exists in his word is true. That's my ultimate standard.

And I'm not going to, I'm not going to leave that. Any more than the evolutionist is going to leave his position that God doesn't exist.

And we all evolved. And that stars form.

In nebulas. We also always want to remember that the last part of first Peter three, 15 with, with meekness and, and humility.

Because we can study and believe me, I've studied and taught Dr. Lyles logic and, and, you know, his ultimate proof book.

And, and sometimes I have found myself not, not winning friends because I, I know more than they do about how to think logically.

So, yeah. Yeah. I mean, we definitely need to be with gentleness and respect, but at the same time, we don't compromise truth.

Yeah. And sometimes that's a fine line and. You know, like my, my buddy

Ray, you know, Since we had that con that was one conversation, all these different things

I had talked to you that with my friend Ray, and he's never really wanted to engage in a conversation like that again, since then.

That's the power of the presuppositional approach, but you're right. You have to be careful because we can destroy them.

Quite easily. And we need to make sure we don't do that. Because then we, we may do more harm than good.

For sure. Yeah. That's the end of our questions. And even though we're done a little bit early,

I think that this will be nice because we have a pretty full. Zoom room. And so maybe some people would like to turn off there.

Turn on their cameras and maybe even turn on their microphone. So we're going to put an end.

Right now, after we. Yeah, not right now, guys. First, we're going to bring an end to our public time.

So. So Scott, I know that you have a website. I'm not sure how, how often you update it, but.

I've heard that you're an author and a musician. So, so tell people, this is our way of thinking.

You is just let people know how they can find you or support you or subscribe to, to what you do.

Yeah, my website, I'm kind of embarrassed about my website. I started that many years ago.

And, and then I started getting involved with. With Mike, Mike Riddle with creation training initiative.

And my website is woefully. Out of date or not updated.

I don't, I don't,

I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't. I don't have any information. I know that we did have a question earlier about your musician.

Side of you. Oh, yeah. Yeah. There's something that you that, you know, keeping in mind that we are still live streaming and recording.

So, but if you'd like to talk about that, you know, I think that we did have some people who were interested to know.

What musician or what, what instrument you play. And if you want to tell a little bit about. out about your testimony as far as your musical?

Sure. Well, my testimony is kind of wrapped up with my music. Musically, well, let me do the testimony first.

Basically, you know, I received Christ when I was about eight years old, and I always had questions.

As a kid, I was pretty gullible, and I got scammed a few times, and I didn't like it. And when

I received Christ, it was, you know, almost kind of, you know, hey, this is almost too good to be true. Maybe I'm being scammed again.

And I liken myself to the guy in Mark chapter nine, where he says, Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.

And I asked a lot of questions. And in junior high and high school, I was introduced to Josh McDowell and C .S.

Lewis and began to just dive into those works. And then in college,

I was introduced to ICR, the Institute for Creation Research. I had no idea there were

Christian scientists doing research, starting from the truth of scripture. And so then that became my passion.

And I taught Sunday schools and classes and, you know, life groups,

Bible studies and things throughout the years. And it was really when I read

Dr. Lyle's book in 2010, you know, the ultimate proof of creation and understood worldviews, and the whole presuppositional approach, that it wrapped all that together.

And it really removed all the questions that I had. And I could really be confident.

And that's when I wanted to get outside of my living room of just small

Bible studies and reach other people with this truth of God's Word, so that they don't have to take 40 years to figure it all out like I did.

And then musically, I've loved music my whole life.

I'm a drummer. I play drums. I took drums, you know, in the school program, started in the school program, and went to college and majored in music.

And actually took two years off in the middle of college to travel with a Christian singing group where we did evangelical concerts, as many days a week as we could, sometimes as many as eight concerts a week, two of them on Sunday, different churches,

Sunday morning and Sunday evening. And so that was kind of a marrying of my faith with my music.

And when I went back to college and finished my bachelor's degree, and then

I moved to Nashville, Tennessee to work in the Christian music industry, and I... God did not allow me to do anything in the

Christian music industry. I've not done anything. I've done a lot of big band jazz and a lot of country music.

And I still work with Ray Stevens, country music artist.

And I was full -time professional musician in Nashville for 26 years. And I'm not full -time anymore, but I still work professionally with Ray, play drums for him.

And this... Ray has his own showroom in Nashville. It's called

The Cabaret, spelled R -A -Y, of course, for Ray, Cabaret.

We've been doing sit -down shows there since 2018. And this, he has announced, made a public announcement last week that this year, 2024, will be his last year of doing regular shows at The Cabaret.

So if you want to see Ray, he's a legend. He just turned 85 and he's still doing shows.

He turned 85 on yesterday, Wednesday was his birthday. And so if you've ever wanted to see

Ray, come to Nashville, come to The Cabaret, come to The Cabaret, and be sure and come say hi to me.

Let me know you're there. I'd be happy to talk to you. And so musically, you know, 26 years as a professional musician,

I played big band, jazz trios, you know, country music, all these rock and roll,

Broadway shows, even some of the symphony a couple of times. Boy, were they desperate,

I'll tell you. But all of this on the drum, that's your instrument? Yeah, my instrument is drums.

Yeah. Mostly drum set. When I subbed with the symphony, I actually played concert percussion things, which is not my strong suit.

But it was fun. They were nice. Was that like the bell and the triangle, or not the triangle and the,

I just was to a concert orchestra. And yeah, it's like there's, there's a lot of different percussive instruments.

There's lots of percussion instruments. Yeah, the times I subbed, the one I played, the concert bass drum.

Another one, I played a variety of things. There was some suspended cymbal and, and thing and -

Kettledrum, the kettledrum. Yeah, I like to do kettledrums. That's probably my favorite classical instrument.

But anyway, subbing with the symphony told me, showed me why that was not the world that I live in.

I live in a jazz world, rock world. The symphony is not my thing.

Yeah. Well, well, maybe sometime we'll have you come back and talk about music.

So we'll have to work that out. Well, that'd be fun. Yeah. But thank you so much for this presentation tonight.

So, so stay with us because we're going to sign off and then, and then we'll just hang back in the Zoom room with the folks there.

But once again, we are Creation Fellowship Santee, and you can find a list of our upcoming speakers by visiting tinyurl .com

forward slash CF Santee. That's C like creation, F like fellowship.

Santee is spelled S -A -N -T -E -E. And we have, we do have quite a few great speakers coming up in the next few months, including, as we've mentioned tonight,

Dr. Lyle, and also Scott and I have both been trained by Mike Riddle, and he'll be speaking for us in May as well.

So we have a pretty impressive list coming up. So be sure to check that out. And with that, we're going to go ahead and sign off.