Informal Debate with "Secular Humanist Atheistic Jew" David Neff, Part 2

It's that it's fascinating to me how easily someone in one religion can find the fallacies and biases in another religion

I think that what's fascinating your raise your razor -sharp on your your your criticism of Islam here

Yeah, and but what I find fascinating Jeff is that you recognize that with other religions

But you don't do it with your own because I that may be the case And there's that confirmation bias coming up again

This is apologetics live to answer your questions your host from striving for eternity ministries

And I'm back well, okay, we're only for a little bit we're gonna have a special show tonight

We're gonna be having again if you guys paid attention last week. We didn't quite get to finish that discussion and so dr

Anthony Silvestro and David will continue their discussion We're gonna have some other discussions.

So we want to remind you if you want to come in ask any questions We welcome that all you have to do is go to apologetics live calm

Apologetics live calm and click the duck. I know it's silly looking but that's the way stream yarn does it there icon is a duck so just click the duck that brings you in you just have to log in with Either I think it's

Facebook or YouTube some something to verify you're actually having an account somewhere and then you can come on in so we're gonna do a

Informal discussion is what we're gonna or informal debate Tonight excuse me.

I will try not to be coughing throughout the show but I'm gonna bring up Anthony in oh, he was just gonna go for his sip of water

Okay, go ahead drink your water and no one will see you drinking water good So so so tonight the the topic of discussion at least the first half is going to be

Dating of the universe, correct Apparently so, you know for the second week in a row we were gonna do just an informal discussion

David thought that he should prepare a an opening. So so yes,

I just I'm flipping through the slides now I guess we're gonna be discussing distant starlight and age of the earth and radiometric dating

So which I love those topics. I mean I can do that off the cuff. So no big deal Yeah, so that's the first hour the second hour for anybody who was tuned in last week

And I hope you work as we had a great discussion David and I had a great time last week Towards the end of the show.

We you know, we brought out a little bit about David and his his background and His his belief that he is now a secular humanist atheistic

Jew And he says it's his really Stop. Yeah, Jewish You wouldn't use the n -word

Yeah, that's a swear Yeah, saying Jew is a swear word. It is to those that grew up after the

Holocaust. Yeah, really. Yeah Wow, I mean I prefer a swear word.

If somebody calls me an Italian, I mean, I think that's great. But okay, whatever so this atheistic

Jew a person That just doesn't sound right. We say that. Okay.

Anyways He he says that through his knowledge of textual criticism

That he came to the conclusion that Christ couldn't be God based on the Old Testament So the second hour is is going to be you and David discussing textual criticism because you might know a little bit about Technical racism a little bit maybe a tad.

Yeah So let's let folks know for anyone that's in the

Orlando area We're gonna be Anthony and I are headed down not too too far from now next month

December 19th we're we're gonna be at Bethula Baptist Church.

That's This church In it's actually in Winter Garden, Florida, but it that's in the

Orlando area. We're gonna be talking on Social justice. We're gonna be doing a seminar on Saturday So if you're in that area come check that out if you travel down for that area stay over Sunday Anthony and I will be doing

Sunday school and then preaching so we'll still be there. So if you're in that area I Will be preaching the week before up in Jacksonville, Florida So if you're if with pastor

Andrew Smith that I'm looking forward to that So I'll be preaching there that week and I think we're planning

Of What would it be the the Traffic which day we're gonna go off Friday.

I think we're planning Friday night. We're gonna do evangelism. Yeah, so For anybody who saw those pictures of be witnessing to the guy in a

Bugatti which turned out to be a kit I'm still calling it a

Bugatti That happened at on International Drive in Orlando It was a great place to witness and so we're gonna go back there on Friday night for several hours

And then we've got the four -hour conference on Saturday on Social justice and and then yeah preaching on Sunday.

So it's gonna be good It it should be it should be so. All right, let's bring David in David.

Welcome again to Apologetics live nice to have you here. Well, thank you guys so much. It's good to be back for the second week in a row

I really enjoyed last week's discussion and I hope this one could be as fruitful and cordial as last one

Yeah, I know me too. You know now David. I don't you got the memo, but you are now a secular humanist

Atheistic Jewish person because you can't say Jew anymore. Well, not if you want to if you don't want to offend people

I Hope you guys are aware that cultural Judaism is a thing you guys know that right?

Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know I'm just teasing Andrews some more. Yeah I could tease him that he doesn't have any hair

Yeah, he could he could tease me about well he tries all right, so So here's what we want to do.

We wanted to David you had Some you know some slides you wanted to go through as an opening

Yeah, we were talking about evolution last week and this ties in nicely with the theme last week Which is the age of the earth and the age of the universe and some of the radiometric dating

But first I do have a very important concession that I would like to make to dr

Anthony last week I said when they showed that the Bible and science are not contradictory at all and that both could be true at the same time however, after listening back to last week's debate and really

Researching it more. I came to the conclusion that They are absolutely 100 % in conflict that a confirmation of one necessarily

Just confirms the other you're talking about age of the earth, right? To the earth evolution and all that what would you agree with that?

No, I I do and I think it's I think it's wonderful I wish I wish my Christian brethren who try to jam millions to billions of years into the

Bible or evolution of the Bible Would get those screws back and put them back in their head because they have that and I'm trying to be nice but it's it's it's downright ridiculous, so I Appreciate that that you understand that they're in total conflict.

Yeah, and if If you can't trust what it says in the beginning if you can't trust what it says when testable issues

You can't really trust it. It says when issues that are not testable and my friend standing for truth says it quite

Well, if you it you can't if you deny the first Adam You have to deny the second

Adam because Jesus Christ in the New Testament is considered to be the second Adam So if there's no first Adam, there's no second

Adam You know what? You could probably teach this course There you go

You just got more theology than probably 85 % of Christians across the country

That's actually Anthony talks about an event where he was when he was working on his book and had that exact discussion with Pastor who didn't think there's a big deal about you know, you can have millions of years in the

Bible And here's the thing You got to do some serious serious scripture twisting in order to try and deny the veracity of the

Noah's Ark and all of that and affirmed in New Testament because the New Testament says I think as Paul or Peter that uses the analogy of Noah's Ark saving him and all of that and so We see it in 2nd

Peter and in Matthew Yeah, you're right so hey

Anthony's you're getting a hello from whole, Ohio I guess this is a fellow Ohioan that's gonna have to make sure that they're you know locked away after 10 o 'clock

So Cynthia, I don't know about you, but I'm going outside at 10 o 'clock and I'm gonna walk down the street Soon as this is over.

I'm out All Right, so let me put up David's slides here yeah, and I'm gonna

I'm gonna go into the background so that it's so that you guys can have a good discussion just the two of you and You know may pop in every once in a while with questions, but awesome.

Go for sure. So as We already mentioned today's topic is going to be on the age of the earth

So there are four critical questions I'm actually gonna add a fourth critical question to the three critical questions that they asked.

How do we know that it is true? Has it ever been observed? Are there any assumptions? And if there are any assumptions, how warranted are those assumptions?

These are what I consider to be the four critical questions First let's consider distant starlight

The speed of light is 3 times 10 to the 8th Meters per second and it takes about 8 minutes for the light from the

Sun to reach Earth Thus we are looking at the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago This is actually

XGN C 1 1 a galaxy which is measured to be about 13 .9

8 billion light -years away Thus the light from this galaxy had to be traveling for more than 13 billion years.

Otherwise, we could not see it Here is actually a type 1a supernova that is ruptured at 1 .914

and this Supernova is 10 billion light -years away. So when we look when we look at that We're looking back at time and this supernovae that occurred 10 billion years ago

Next let's get into radiometric gating Radiometric gating is a method to calculate the age of a sample by measuring the presence of radioactive decay

Certain isotopes are unstable and they will undergo decay The starting element is called the parent isotope and the ending isotope is called the daughter isotope

And the scientific literature a proper radiometric gating will read years before present plus or minus the range

Divided by 2 at times the standard deviation rate. In other words as with everything there is always a margin of error

So let's get into carbon -14 dating the most well -known of the dating and I just wanted to point out that carbon -14 dating is not the

Method that we use to say that the earth in the universe is 14 point around 13 billion years or so That that is actually a different method.

Carbon -14 is only good for samples about 50 000 years old so Carbon has three main isotopes carbon -12 carbon -13 and carbon -14

Carbon -14 is unstable and it undergoes beta decay and it will turn into nitrogen -14

What happens is cosmic radiation from the sun enters the earth's atmosphere and collides with the atom creating an energetic neutron

And when that neutron collides with a nitrogen atom a nitrogen -14 Atom turns into a carbon -14 atom plants absorb this carbon dioxide and incorporate carbon -14 through photosynthesis

Animals and people eat plants and take in the carbon -14 And following the death burial and all of that They are no longer taking in carbon -14.

So this carbon -14 is going to decay back into nitrogen -14

The carbon dating is used on organic samples It has a half -life of 57 30 years and it's accurate up to about 50 000 years as I already mentioned

And it can be calibrated using dendrogonography, ice core samplings, etc So here we have the shroud of Turin Three independent scientists carbon dated the shroud to the middle ages

And this is actually consistent with what we know about its history and the shroud first appeared in 1349.

So the carbon dating Correlates quite well with what we know about its history. So this is an independent checkmate

Here we have the dead sea scrolls, which is carbon dated to 408 BCE to 318 CE Which is quite consistent with what we know about the history of this

Qumran community And there are over 900 different manuscripts which all date to the same age range

The oldest ones date back well before the time of christ and the most recent ones date a couple centuries after jesus christ

And so what's nice about carbon dating is that we can use this to check the authenticity of an archaeological find

We can disconfirm the shroud of Turin, but we can confirm the dead sea scrolls and this date is universally accepted by even the most ardent young earth creationists

So here's some more archaeology. This paper is from this past year Carbon dated several pottery fragments by analyzing the fatty acids left behind on the pottery

And several of these pottery pieces dated back 3 ,600 BCE plus or minus 200 years

So, yeah, that is quite fascinating and some of these actually date back to over 8 ,000 years so much older than dr.

Anthony's universe Next let's get into rubinian strontium dating This is a method technique used to determine the age of rocks and minerals

From the quantities they contain isotopes of rubidium 87 and strontium 87 and strontium 86

This has a half -life of 49 .23 billion years old. It is an isochron dating

So what we're doing is we're actually measuring two ratios. We're measuring the ratio of rubidium 87 to strontium 86 and strontium 87 to strontium 86

And Here we measure this with a mass spectroscopy We can actually tell if a system is open

Or a contaminated or if it's a closed system, which is pure simply by looking at the graph And this is done the two ratios should be changing at the same rate

And of course, it's a pretty simple calculation from there So, how do we check its accuracy?

Well, we can Use multiple dating methods and we can send samples to independent labs

And so here's a great example the kt tektites as you can see There's a whole list of them and the different methods that was used on it and they all agree with each other

Dinosaurs went extinct about 70 million years ago after a large asteroid impacted earth the multiple tektites were dated from across the world different methods yielding similar results and It also correlates quite well with the dates for the dinofossils and other samples within this kt technology

So in summary The truth is what the facts are and the facts are what the evidence shows over 40 different Dating methods all agree with each other each of these dating methods have their own unique half -life methods calculations assumptions, etc

We know that it's true because we can observe and measure it Can dr anthony silvestro provide robust methods that all agree with each other can he do that to Show that the earth and universe is only 6 000 years old

I suspect that he cannot and I suspect that the majority of his opening argument will be cherry picking data for when

Radiometric dating yielded poor results. So that is what I predict. So let's see if I am correct.

Thank you very much How did I do in time? I I don't know you're on seven ish minutes.

I mean i'm not taking exact time, but it's about seven minutes So i'll take about that or whatever okay, so So i'm wondering if we might be doing this for two hours tonight rather than We'll see how the day goes.

Okay, so So thank you for being on david again, you know, I was I was excited, uh to have you on last week

I'm excited to have you on again this week Um I'm gonna start off the exact same way.

I started last week I don't debate for the fun of debates. I mean, I enjoy debating don't get me wrong.

But but uh, my My primary purpose is that I want to see you get saved and you brought a buddy.

I want to see him get saved too um that's that's the reality and you know, you guys both suffer from the same thing that I used to suffer from that every christian used to suffer from which is

We love our sin we suppress the truth about god in our sin and therefore we

We pretend he doesn't exist so that we can continue doing what we want to do in our lives and And the thing i'm going to tell you again david is that you know,

I again, I know your background We talked about this last week. I'm, sorry for all that stuff But here's the reality is that it doesn't matter what happened in this life

It doesn't matter who treated you wrong or whatever You're still going to face god on judgment day And when you die, you're going to face him you're going to have to give an accounting for every sin every time you've broken his law you're going to have to give an accounting for that and and You and I and everybody else deserves just punishment for our sins against him

That's the bottom line and and it's either you're going to pay that penalty for your sin yourself in hell for eternity or Through repentance and faith that was already paid for by christ on the cross through his death and resurrection

And so I pray that you come to a saving faith and a and a are granted repentance

And uh and knowledge about who he is and then granted faith um, according to to who he is having said all that I Where i'm going to go for my remaining time in this, uh in this informal opening

Is Last week was interesting. We talked about evolution and as as we talked about and you correctly stated that the reality is is scientists know that that There's zero observable evidence of macroevolution

There is zero observable evidence going from the single cell All the way up to all the complex life we see today.

There's none. There is no observable evidence of this Microevolution and and and the uh, the idea of speciation is not evidence for macroevolution that's that's doing a quick that's a

That's doing a logical fallacy there equivocating on the term evolution And and so one of the things I like to point out anyway to the biologists say well, you know

How convenient y 'all like to start with the single simple cell? The reality is is you don't even want to touch the fact that it's impossible for even one cell

Just magically come together with all the micro machines And the the millions of pieces that are specifically designed to come together for that cell in order to be able to live

Breathe eat excrete waste heal and reproduce in order for that to be able to evolve in the first place

Like that is literally impossible So scientists just ignore it and that's okay fine.

I get it We're going to now talk today and and I love these topics by the way I mean, you know

I did write a book on this about four years ago on the origin of kinds and And I address all these topics in the book that we're going to talk about today, too

So biologists on one hand, they they don't want to deal with the first cell coming around Then we talk to the physicists and astrophysicists

And they like to say well, here's the matter. Here's how stars form. Here's how this happens and blah blah blah blah blah

Really? Tell me where the matter came from to begin with Tell me how life started out of non -life to begin with because those two things go against all known laws of science

You can't get something from nothing and you can't get life from not life like like these are well documented well -known

Issues and so the astrophysicists and physicists cheat the same way the biologists do and they just kind of ignore the beginnings

And they say well, you know We have these stars and now let's talk about the distant starlight problem and and oh we got you now, uh, uh you creationists

No, no, actually you don't We we do have lots and lots of truth

And this is what we have to understand about science There's two types of science

When we understand science there's a historical Version of science and there's an operational experimental type of science.

I addressed this slightly last week When we're talking about observing something today in real time a real observation so not

Observing microevolution and then pretending that's macroevolution and testing it. We're talking about observing something real

So you you observe something it's real. We now come up with a hypothesis about what we saw

So we now do tests we repeat those tests and we hopefully verify

Our hypothesis we came off of from our observation and now we can call something a theory as time goes on That's how the experimental science world works

It has to be real -time observations real -time testing real -time results for us to come with come up with theories

That's one side. The other side of science is Nobody observed it. We have no clue how it happened

We're going to try to use today's clues and try to go backwards and figure out what happened back then when there was no eyewitnesses so it's the difference between it's it's the difference between me dropping an apple and watching it hit the ground a bunch of times and that's a test that I can try to Test a hypothesis of my observation

There must be some force that's causing this apple to fall to the ground each and every time I release it and so When I do that a bunch of times

I can say wait a minute. Maybe there's a force right hypothesis There's a force i'm going to keep testing this wow, you know what this works each and every time

Now I think this is a a theory. Okay, cool That's different than the person who was whose whose dead body was found in the bottom of a lake

And and the decay has happened for Four days weeks months and this body gets found in And dragged out of the water and now you've got detectives going around and trying to find clues in real time

And trying to put those things together in real time Based on something that happened in the past with no eyewitnesses.

That's historical science So you can apply some experimental science in real time, but you can't apply it to history it's a category error and and that is is a real issue in terms of Of trying to prove things from the past with experimental science.

So we want to make sure we keep those two things Separated here now

Having said that I i'm going to address just I think one thing and then my time will will probably be up here

David your your first talking slide. So your second slide said the four critical questions. How do we know it's true?

Has it ever been observed? Are there any assumptions? And then you added the addendum if so, how warrants are the assumptions?

It's a decent addendum This is the reason why we ask these questions is because it's historical science

How do we know it's true? Well, we don't because there's no eyewitness According from a scientific perspective now as christians.

We understand there is an eyewitness. It was god But okay, so how do we know it's true? We don't has ever been observed

No, that goes to the origin of the universe as well as the origin of the first cell as well as macroevolution

And then are there assumptions are there any assumptions? Oh, you betcha. There are tons and tons and tons and tons of assumptions

Now can some of them be warranted based on today's observations? Sure we can we have some we have some assumptions that Could theoretically be better than other assumptions.

It doesn't make them any less true or any more true It just means there's still assumptions So so that's that's an important thing for us to understand going forward and uh

Again, you know, we're going to talk through this david you're going to walk away when we're done and recognize that that just like last week

The scientists secular scientists have literally no leg to stand on in the science Last week in supporting macroevolution this week in supporting origin of the universe as well as distant starlight and carbon -14 dating

And so on that I I think we should start opening up to distant starlight, right? And it's kind of our first topic

Yeah, sure. So let's talk about distant starlight. So, um, yeah How would you address that because we have these lights that um have to be traveling

Um, let's just take the nearest star system, which is alpha centauri about three light years away. Yeah That light had to travel

Had two days to get from alpha centauri to earth in order for um

Um to be able to see it So if this is the case, then that means that the light had to be traveling millions of times faster than it is today

Um problem with that. There's a lot of problems. Do you subscribe to the um cdk model?

That lights go down over time By any chance, how would you address this issue? Yeah, great.

Great question. Well before we wonder about how I address the issue because this is the way

I address the issue is Are there any assumptions in the statement you just made? So you you you said that you said

Factually that it takes x amount of time for light to come to earth From alpha centauri now now just to give you some credit and understanding

Just for people to understand because right this is an apologetic show the way we see things is not It's not because our eyes like magically like go out and see things, right?

Our our eyes see things because light is bouncing around everywhere and the light that's bouncing off of objects is bouncing into our eyes

And that's what we're capturing in our eyes, right? so so the issue with the distant starlight according to secular scientists is that light

If we can see the star that means that light is entering our eyes and that means because this light is 13 billion

Light years away. It must have taken 13 billion years For that light to travel all the way through the universe to get into our eyes for us to see it

Therefore there the universe must be 13 plus billion years old at a minimum. That's the argument now

Here's my question for you. David. Oh, sure. Yep. Are there any assumptions? um

Well, I guess you can say there's an assumption that the light Speed has been constant over time, but that's a pretty easy assumption to prove um, first of all

Okay, sure. Let's let's take it one by one. What is the most famous equation in all of science e equals mc squared

What is e? You know es what is e energy?

What is m? M is a constant is um, uh mass And then what is what is what is and c squared good?

So what happens if we were to speed up because because what you need to make your model work

Is for us to speed up light at least a million times faster than it was now I haven't told you what our model is yet.

Okay. Sure. So so what exactly is your model? Here well, here's the well Here's the problem is that is that the assumption that scientists are making is completely wrong

So what assumption are we making and why is that assumption wrong? Is that the speed of light? You don't know if that's actually a speed of light

The speed of light is the average speed of light all that's ever quoted is the average speed of light and No, you know the problem that that has been plaguing physicists for 100 years now is that They don't know and it's impossible to calculate

The one -way speed of light and then all the equations in the physics world. Jason Lao just wrote a book on this all the equations the physics world work out whether you have the one -way speed of light instantaneous

And the and the return speed of light taking double the time of what the the average speed of light is or anything in between That's that's a major assumption that is is made by secular scientists

I don't pretend to know the answer just as much as the secular scientists don't either All right.

Sure. So leo wants to come in because he has all this physics knowledge and he says he wants he wants to Correct you on this.

Well, that's fine. But there's no There is no one -way speed of light that's ever been. Yes. Yes, there is

I gotta grab a table set my laptop. You know what here? Let me just do this

For the time being so number one the speed of light is a constant. We we know that it's a constant we've done experiments

That's the problem No, it's okay Also, um,

I also want to point out that um I also want to point out real quick that the speed of light is actually tied to several other physical, um content such as yeah

Wasn't constant pretty much the whole of modern physics would be wrong. Hey leo So so I want folks watching to notice what's what's happening because when when we talk on the show

About a bait and switch that happens or in this case, you know equivocation fallacy of equivocation.

This is what folks you're seeing here Anthony was very clear in this the one way speed of light

Versus what they're talking about a round trip speed of light now what they're going to do is talk about constant and Giggling and laughing which is is a way of kind of brushing off things but that actually shows an arrogance and a lack of Being willing to hear someone out and that's why you're seeing him

Fall into the fallacy because he's arguing son and you're seeing it. He's going to say well we have all these constants we do and And and everything that he was giving with constants guess what?

meaningless Because it has nothing to do with the topic Leo if he wants to has to prove

Is how fast? When you shoot a beam of light to A mirror that's on mars or on the moon and it returns.

That's the round trip What's the speed going to the moon? And what's the speed returning from the moon?

That's impossible to measure about Kilometers per second

Again you're giving okay like only be measured Because the time dilation can only be measured

Back forth. It's a round trip. So no equations where the where the constant speed of light is tied to It's the it's the average speed of light.

No, it's not an issue with that. So no average There's no average there. It's not an app ignoring all secular

Talk to the secular scientists. Let me get leo to try to define this for us. Okay leo.

How do we measure this? How do we Well, there's been numerous experiments to measure the speed of light most frequently c is tied to I believe it's one over the square root of the electric permeability of space times the magnetic permittivity of space whatever tell us how they

So folks, I just want you to notice that sounds really impressive and he said absolutely nothing on answering the actual question.

Well, I did How do we do I had said no, what's the experiment?

I asked you how you measure it that that means an experiment the speed of light well there's been new I mean michelson and morley did an experiment where they tried to demonstrate that that to see if there was a um,

A luminiferous ether and those experiments were based on measuring the speed of light and variances in it

They couldn't measure variances in the speed of light as the earth moved demonstrating that there is no luminiferous ether. So there's one experiment um

No, no, no I think some of the early experiments go back to what was it? 1626 that gallileo performed the first experiment

So let let me let me try this now if I if I if andrew asked me to measure This microphone

I would take out a ruler and I would measure my microphone Okay, what we're asking you is is how do the scientists every single time they've ever tested the speed of light?

How do they test it and and I actually provided a way of doing it? So when when I say how I provided a way you can do it of light

It's and it shoots out and we can measure how long it takes to get there and back to us

But you cannot measure how long it takes to get there And then how to measure from there back to us you're assuming that And you're okay.

Then you tell me how you measure The speed of light I I gave you one way that we've done it

No, you gave me you gave me uh arguments. You didn't explain how you actually do the measurement.

See I i'm not a professional To a mirror that's on the moon

And you see the light come back from the point that you shoot it and it comes back is about three seconds, right?

So we can measure that time the met the time is the measurement So you have to show how you actually measure the distance the speed from the earth just to the moon

Well, you would go to the moon and then measure how long it takes from the light For a light beam to go from the earth to the moon

And is that exactly it's that's that we'll just calculate the one way. How does it? The amount of time it takes to actually get to the moon.

That's pretty easy to um calculate And um It's also worth mentioning that speed of light is not constant and our gps systems wouldn't work that's also

That is a non -sequitur. No, it's not.

Yes. It absolutely is because none of us are disagreeing with with the round trip speed of light None of the speed doesn't change

You assume the speed of light doesn't change. It doesn't matter if it's Is in a medium where the photons begin to interact with the electron cloud surrounding whatever particular

Material makes up that medium so so The the thing that you have to do is you're going to have to start engaging with what anthony and I are saying

I have been you know what you haven't been because you haven't been answering the questions and by the way Also stated quite nicely that it is also determined by the strength of the electric field strength constant and the magnetic field strain constant

Um, also which is the permittive field in the permissivity constant free space That's what I that's what

I had said earlier c is equal to one over the square root of um, what is that's a roll Not by epsilon.

Not. Yeah. Okay, and that's by the way the um For that's what I was talking about earlier. Is that um at the speed of light was not the speed of light.

Um, you can't Okay take the speed of light down Let me help you.

What did c what does c represent the constant c? What does that mean the c represents the constant of the speed of light?

No, I mean the average speed of light. No, no, no, no, there is no such thing as average In modern physics nowhere

Because I don't want there being this constant talking over okay, so We're going to we got to be speaking of the same thing and and you guys are not doing it

So i'm going to try again giving a formula for the speed of light Is not a description of how you measure it now

Leo, you said you can measure One way the direction from how fast it takes from the earth to the moon

Okay Now you have to you're going to have to explain how you have all the gravity exactly the same no changes in gravity that can affect

The the time or anything like that So you need to prove how you can do one direction not both

Every time you give an a a the calculations go we gps wouldn't work The thing you're doing and what anthony keeps saying is you're talking about the average that's to the moon and back

You are not giving how fast it takes in one direction So go ahead So number one gravity doesn't change the speed of light number two

The speed of light isn't an average and number three you would measure from going from the earth to the moon by going to The moon and measuring how long it takes a photon or a beam of light to go from the earth to the moon

It's about I believe 1 .2 One thing he said anthony, yeah, that's fine.

He just said Yeah Um, and folks go back and listen, you'll hear that.

I said that gravity affects not the speed of light time Now unless you want to disagree with Go ahead and disagree with einstein

Light doesn't experience time photons are moving at the speed of light. They're permanently To measure it without a clock

Okay That doesn't mean that we can't measure by gravity your measurement. You can't prove that measurement.

That's the point What level physics class have you taken? Yeah on like formally or yeah

Well i've taken not because I haven't been to college but i've done several the great courses that are taught by some of the most

Renowned physicists and i've watched probably close to 40 lectures from leonard susskind Who's one of the world's most renowned physicists?

He's given almost 140 lectures in total called the theoretical minimum Yeah, so let me help you.

Okay Um, I don't think I need help here when you get into college and you take some of these courses like I have um,

I took I I would I was in all kinds of upper level as a as a double major math and chemistry.

I took physics courses I understood I took an entire semester on schrodinger equation um

Like I get this stuff To to a good degree You've you've literally been lied to if you've honestly never been told if you've honestly never been told

That light cannot be measured because of time dilation issues. You cannot synchronize two clocks

Yes, you can you you can't yes, you can't Anthony prove it then where's where's your proof of that?

We've done it and i'm gonna I also want to say one thing leo because I i'll just let you know right off the bat

I have an aversion to people that come in and act arrogantly and pretend like they know everything and then say ignorant statements

When you haven't done any of that and you twist it and then you put different words in there That is that that is a way to get put back into backstage

So you're gonna need to correct that and actually start dealing with what anthony's saying I have been You have not been and we actually

I gotta say I think that Actually, i've got to say I've sat back for 40 minutes and Man, you just you jumped on the show and it's been as arrogant as can be and I gotta say

No, no, no, no. No, no, listen up You can leave the show if you want that's fine, but we're trying to have a polite conversation

What they're trying to teach you i've actually put it in the back and in the front in the front for everyone to see

The arguments that they're trying to make to you, but you're not listening I'm listening to them.

Okay, their arguments just aren't correct. The physicists don't support what they're saying The physicists actually do and they're on youtube and actually talk about it.

No, they really don't Uh, listen leo Making statements like no, they don't

Doesn't actually prove anything. Okay. I wasn't trying to prove anything Give Okay, if you're going to keep talking over we're just going to be done with you and i'll just be david and Misconstrue what i'm saying then

Uh, you misconstrued what I said and I proved it now you prove where I misconstrued what you said

Or you keep saying that I'm misconstruing what you guys are saying when i'm not i'm just correcting you You're not correcting because we're trying we keep trying to point out.

Okay. Well, that's it. You're you're gone Okay, david go ahead you can you can talk without your help because he's he's not he's he's just being arrogant and not actually listening

Let me lay something out for the audience Yeah, angela, let me lay something out for your audience because this is important for people to to understand

And we're going to do just really really simple math here. So if I take if I take the numbers 2 and 20

Okay at the average That would be 11 If I take the numbers 4 and 18,

I add them together get 22 take the average I get 11 If I take the number 6 And 16 I get 22 the average is 11 now why am

I doing this because this is what's been shown with real physicists is that is that The the c is is what they call the constant is the average speed of light

I could have light be directional one way Let's give it a speed of 2 and the other way a speed of 20

The average is 11. I could give it one way for the back the the opposite way 18

Guess what? The average is 11. I give it 6 one way 16 the other way guess what the average is still 11

This is so just quoting a bunch of formulas with c and it doesn't prove anything

What is c and if you go back and read all the scientific all the science books?

It's and and Unfortunately, there's a lot of scientists who and and I remember this back in school

It's kind of like in high school when they teach about the atom They they draw these little electron circles around the around the nucleus, right?

And they say this is how the electrons travel and then he gets a college course as you find out. You know what? That's not how electrons there's there's more of like this cloud thing

That happens and then when you get to really upper level chemistry, you're like it's even worse than that It's just like this whole big cloud and we have a real problem in understanding speed and position of each one of those electrons

We just know probability is where the elections are going to sit like this is what happens in progression of knowledge They teach it very simply in the beginning and then we start to learn more as time goes on.

Well, guess what light is Light is not Is is not we don't understand what the one directional speed of light is it's always been the average speed of light

Unfortunately in very low level physics classes And probably a lot of the class so I don't even

I don't even fault leo I I you know, I wish he would have just listened and uh and understood this

But the reality is is that in some of the early courses he's taken The scientists are being sloppy or they're just or they're trying to keep it simple and just throwing out speed of light as c

In reality, it's the average speed of light and there are for anybody who wants it I think justin has the video he can post it into the comment section.

Jason. Lyle said this is the best video That's ever been done on this. It's only about 18 minutes long It will explain to you the problem with the synchronizing the clocks and why it's impossible.

It's not just that it's not been done It's impossible to To get the one -way speed of light calculated.

It always has to be Because the problem with two clocks you can't you can't take the speed of light from here to here

And get that one directional speed you because these clocks can never be synchronized according to physics

So what has to happen is you have to have in a vacuum light bounce go from the source Bounce somewhere here come back to the source and because it's the same clock

You don't have to worry about synchronizing it with another clock. Now. We get the average speed of light How long did it take to go there and back we divide it by two and now we have an average speed of light

That is the that is the only way that you can actually Get the speed of light and it's from there

And uh, yeah, I took quantum mechanics as well immutable destiny I don't know where you're coming up the information from it's always been known as the average speed of light

And so there's plenty of stuff you guys can find on that too to learn about to learn about the light

Having said all of that david. Let's let's get back to Um our understanding of light

I bring up the assumption because there's an assumption there and and i'm not

I'm not pretending as creationists That we have all the answers that secular scientists want to think they have in terms of speed of light

I can tell you this that Secular scientists have the exact same problem um

Uh, I seriously doubt this anthony guy is taking quantum mechanics Would you like me to pull out my book on quantum mechanics and even my a plus grade in quantum mechanics?

This is the reason he got kicked I mean this is the proof of arrogance right there exactly and and i'm, sorry david, but this is

You know, this is what you end up deal with folks when you deal with apologetics With people who have an ignorant arrogance

What is an ignorant arrogance they they don't know what they're talking about, but they they're convinced they're right because They've seen some lectures.

They don't understand all the background of the lectures, but they've seen the lectures and The arrogance is they know they're right and you can't question them.

They won't listen to anything They don't take in any information that doesn't confirm their bias.

That's a fallacy by the way confirmation bias That's what you you have on display

It is it creates an ignorant arrogance and that is the reason you end up seeing that now here is where is the there's the link for you to go to that justin put out for you to see the

From an astrophysicist someone that has a phd in the subject, uh explaining this stuff

So when you say no one with a phd would believe that well, I guess there is someone that Does and people have been engaging back and forth with his conclusions

So yeah, they're about seven million people that have been dealing with that as well on that Yeah, no, it's it's a it's a great video

Okay, so david so I I am not going to pretend to give answers like we as creationists the same way secular scientists

We don't understand light Completely you are you familiar with the horizon problem?

Yes, I am familiar with the horizon problem with the big bang model. I am Familiar with the issues and the proposed solutions of inflation and grand unified theory

I am familiar with that yeah, and so just to explain to our audience what the issue is because the reality is is that Secular scientists secular physicists have the exact same problem.

They claim the the creationists have they say well You have a problem because you can't explain this distant starlight that's coming in that obviously took billions of years

So therefore you must think that the light travels much faster than the speed of light Okay, let's talk about the horizon problem now on the secular model

According to the big bang, which obviously is a fallacy, but okay If I got it, maybe I should try and explain it just um, so we can both be on the same page

So basically the horizon problem is the issue of okay if this big bang happened, why is the universe so homogenous, correct?

Well the temperature so homogenous, right? It's it's within 10 to the negative fifth kelvin So it's it's almost a universal temperature not when you're close to a star but it's when you're in in in um the vast because you know,

We look at stars and if you go to canada, you see lots and lots of stars But in reality space is is the universe is almost all space

Right, so we're talking not next to a star But we're talking in the vast areas of space that no matter where we test and probe

That they it's all within 10 negative fifth kelvin, which is which is really really small.

So it's essentially the same temperature Yeah, and um, I think the inflation model solves it quite well um, and it solves the

Horizon the flatness monopole and the um inflation and I think it does explain it quite well well, let's talk about the problem though because the problem is that Is that very similar to if you have a hot cup of coffee and this is the way

I explain it to people when I teach You have a hot cup of coffee If if you put the correct amount of ice cubes in in that coffee to make it a temperature that would be

Okay for you to not burn yourself Let's say you dump all that ice in and the moment it's done melting you take a sip

What would happen to you? Well, if you tried this at home, you would get burned why some of that the ice that melted most of the

Cold would be still on the top and most of the heat would still be on the bottom Because it takes time for the heat to transfer

So what you have to do then is you have to take a coffee stirrer and stir the coffee Um so that you get that uniform mixing of heat

Well, it varies similar to why we put coffee right if you put coffee creamer in your coffee, it's going to stick on top Um similar analogy you have to mix it up to get it to to mix together properly

Okay, so this is a heat issue If you had that cup of coffee and you didn't actually stir it takes a little while for the heat to transfer and to get

A uniform cup of of temperature that's not going to burn you well, the universe is the same way if we have the only way that the

That the universe which would have had to have hot and cold spots in the big bang model

But yet we see a temperate we see a pretty um The temperature pretty much the same everywhere that means you have to have lots of light traveling carrying energy

Causing the coolest causing all the different hot and cold spots to become a uniform temperature throughout the universe and the issue is that if you take to In 13 and a half to 14 billion years of the universe existing.

There's not been anywhere near enough time For the universe to have a uniform temperature, right?

That's that's the horizon problem So secular scientists know this is the problem. They've always known

That that their big bang model doesn't work because they have to believe the speed of light is faster

Than the average speed of light is faster than the average speed of light for it to work. And this is why

They come up with all these different inflationary theories This is why they looked at the higgs boson particle few years ago

Got really excited because it could have changed the face of their calculations for the big bang To try to help solve the horizon problem amongst others

Uh, so that's that's the issue. So now david. I I know you're excited because you feel like Scientists at least have some attempted explanations for this, right?

uh, yeah, so, um kind of wanted to kind of take back and Um, I think we should just go back real quick to the original issue of the speed of light

When you when you actually agree And I do apologize Um for what happened earlier

So so the question that I have for you what exactly is your model to explain even if I were to concede your point that we don't know the um

Speed of light in a one -way direction How exactly would you explain how we have?

Light from billions of light years away and we can see quite detailed with the supernovae and the gravitational waves.

Um From billions of miles that perfectly concords with um relativity and all of that.

Um, So so can you uh kind of help me explain according to your model? How do you propose what what is your proposed solution?

Yeah, god made it so Okay, basically magic, but unfortunately, that's not a um valid answer in science

Well, actually it's not magic It's that the creator of the universe who made that initial cell that the biologists can't explain

Who made all the matter in the beginning and made everything that we see today? Is he's quite powerful enough to be able to make the universe?

To be the exact way it is now. Do we have theories as creationists? Of course We we see that that god has stretched out the heavens

It could very well be that the that the light that was present from the stars early in creation

And then he expanded the universe is why we still have light that's coming in from from the stars.

It's an entire possibility another possibility is this issue of light if you have if if light is is

You know, obviously again we go back to the fact light is an average speed of light.

So if light travels one way in in say instantaneously

And the other way in twice the time than the average speed of light is today Then the average speed of light would still be the same average

Right, so which that's what my point was before two and twenty if it was if light

Would travel say 20 miles an hour one way and two miles an hour back The average is 11 if it traveled 18 miles an hour one way and four miles an hour back.

The average is still 11 if it traveled 21 .9999 miles an hour one way and then point zero zero zero zero one the other way

Guess what? It would still average 11 miles an hour. So so that is easily that's an easy way to explain it as andrew was talking before there could be a uh, the the idea of of gravitational wells, this is a little bit more advanced but but But the the way that we the way that light can travel is different in places of heavy gravity versus not

Um, especially from our perspective. So there's there's a number of explanations that we have To be able to say hey, there's some possibilities in the end

It doesn't make or break everything because i'm going to go back to the the main issue here

That I that I really opened with It's great to talk about light. I love it.

It's great to talk about planets and stars. Awesome But the question is is where did it all come from to begin with?

Okay, so, um, let's talk about one by one, um go back to the higgs boson This is why

I love science is that the higgs boson particle for those who don't know Was actually predicted in the 1960s, um through mathematical equations

And it was experiment it wasn't experimentally confirmed until 2012. I think

It was a few years ago that they tried to claim they found a higgs boson particle. Yeah Do you think they actually found it?

No, I I mean and and even but even if they did it wouldn't have mattered. Anyway, just just note because like Basically, if you if you look

Every time that their funding comes up They claim they found it. This has been gone. I've been following this for for decades now

They're they always say they're very close just as the funding comes up so But they've said that before Uh, I I see, um, it was literally discovered, uh by atlas and cms, um, and the um

Out and zer and so this has definitely been Found and we know it exists through the mathematical equations

So, um, okay, but see that's the problem. So they have mathematical modeling to try to so, okay secular scientists

That know that there's catastrophic problems The big bang theory have come up with an idea mathematically that hey, here's a way we can fudge the numbers

Biden's way. I mean, um higgs boson particle way by By doing this this and this mathematically

In order, sorry, I had to throw that in there But but they they look at the math because okay. I was a math guy

I know how to fudge the numbers All you have to do is say well, you know if we put another thing here now we get this expectation

Well now all of a sudden this horizon problem doesn't seem to be as big of a problem anymore That's what they did mathematically.

It's the mathematically mathematics didn't prove it All's mathematics says is give them a way out and so if you say it's it's actually a logical fallacy to say that too, you're you're um,

You're you're starting with a statement that you're that you're attempting to prove but you're giving that proof within your statement

So that's exactly what they've done and what they always do when they try to come up with the rescuing devices Okay, sure.

So yeah, we definitely know the higgs boson particle at this we we literally discovered it with the large hydrant collider

It's something um, not something that um Is really up for debate in the physics community um, the question that I have for you is

What would that do if we were to find if we had to be exposed on solar cold? What would that do to your model anything?

What what would that do for your model if you accepted that? Um, I know I don't care if they find a higgs boson particle or not.

It doesn't disprove god God still made it and uh, and I will say this. I mean whoever this heisenberg is

Uh, we don't have secular science. We just have science I agree with you The reason why I say secular science is when when scientists lie in order to suppress the truth about god

And try to pretend god doesn't exist. I call that secular science Everything else you're right science is science as long as we distinguish between historical science and experimental science that that is science and and and the problem with science is that if if we do science properly

And we do it without bias and we actually do this with with um

With proper testing and proper everything that's where we actually make scientific discoveries in this world

This is where we actually learn things When secular scientists are doing what you just did there

Or what you told told us, uh the audience there about higgs boson particle where they say well We know we have a catastrophic problem in the big bang.

How are we going to solve this? Oh, let's put a fudge factor in here and we'll call this a higgs boson particle. That's that's not science

That's fairy tale That's work Yeah, the higgs boson particle that was discovered literally conformed to the mathematical predictions made in the 1960s

So so it conformed perfectly to what we would have predicted in the 1960s If I could real quick I am

If I could real quick I posted on here in the private chat that there actually was um

During the in tech times news. They actually have a discussion about the higgs boson particle and coming from cern supercollider and it talks about the fact that there are many physicists that say that it is um

It is definitely not what uh, they were trying to say it was anthony's uh discussion here is uh confirmed by many different physicists that say this is um, this is

It's basically a straw man. And and that's just I just I want to make sure that's in there If you guys want the article

I can put I can post it Yeah So, okay, let's go to some some uh

Some more fun, uh topics here, you know, right? I mean we kind of went through some of these already.

I think we talked enough about this in starlight Yeah Yeah, we spoke about that for a while.

So I guess we could should kind of just move on to um radiometry dating carbon dating if you want

Yeah, we yeah, we can we can do that So I'm pulling your slides up here.

Um for me to to view as well. Okay, so you actually you did a nice job in explaining um very simply what radiometric dating is is that uh

We take a rock Now I I have to i'm going to ask you this question.

What are our assumptions? but uh, so we're going to take a rock and we're going to Um, look at the parents and daughter atoms and based on the ratio of parents and daughter atoms

We are going to say it's x amount years old because we know Uh, we know what the decay rate is from parent to daughter, right?

Correct. We do know the decay rate has been pretty well established And in fact, uh, would you agree kind of with the accelerated nuclear decay model by any chance?

Would you at least agree that there's billions of years worth of radiometric decay? Well, it depends how we're defining this because if we're defying it in a way to say that this earth is billions of years old then then no um because Again, we have to look at assumptions so do

As far as we can tell do these decay do these? Um, so you pulled up I think rubidium strontium is is one of is one of them that you pulled up, right?

Lead uranium lead is probably the most uh common one. That's uh that's used Uranium lead is probably the most accurate and one of the things

I want to ask you is If they were all wrong or invalid assumptions or whatever, why is it that they all?

Agree quite well with each other Um, they all have their unique assumptions. They all have their unique half -lives and when we actually correlate them the um

This is why scientists use different methods That way they can cross check it and they can what in a beautiful thing about isochron dating

Is that you don't you can actually tell um, if the sample is closed or if it's um contaminated

Yeah and they like they they say that and it helps to skew the numbers a little bit towards what they're what they're trying to To say and I don't have an issue with that I i'm gonna say what are some of the major assumptions?

So when we test a rock today We see parents and daughter atoms. What is an assumption of that rock when that rock first formed?

well, one of the assumptions is um that the Became rate has always been constant

Okay, good So so for billions of years according to psychoscientists have there been people around to always test the decay rate to see if it's always been

Okay, sure. So let's talk about that real quick um, I guess the second question is how warranted is the assumption that's the next question we have to ask and As it turns out if you want to accelerate nuclear decay that nuclear decay actually, um um produces

Significantly heat and radiation and dr. Andrew snelling who is a geologist on the answers and genesis and icr payroll when he developed the um, because andrew snelling agrees that there is um

Billions of work that when we actually do these dating methods. Dr Snelling would agree and I know standing for truth also agrees that they actually do appear to be billions of years old

And what dr. Andrew snelling did is he actually calculated what the temperature would be? If you try and speed up, um nuclear decay to um billions of years worth in only um a couple thousand years

He got the number 22 000 degrees kelvin. So this is what this is the problem if you want to accelerate nuclear decay and also if I want to add on to that, um, and so happens because the um

Atom is unstable the um neutron I think is too the nucleus of the atom is too large and so it emits radiation in order so I'll i'll explain it like this radium

Radioactive decay is having an unstable atom go into a more stable situation.

That is what it is right, so So if you want to it is all covered by the electroweak force so if you're wanting to change the um

If you want to speed up um the decay rate Um, you're going to have to change whether the four fundamental forces in the future

And so you definitely need to create a model um, how exactly is the um speed how exactly does the um nuclear decay

Speed up billions of times faster than it is now. Yeah, and um, um

And how do you account for the heat problem that dr. Snelling agrees with? Yeah, well, yeah, so yeah, but so but you're only telling us part of what dr.

Snelling says so when he when he qualifies the statement about billions of years of of Decay, so to speak seen he's not saying that earth is billions of years old

What he's saying is that in laboratories today we can affect this we can affect the decay rate.

Yeah We can they've they've shown that that can be done now having said that Where andrew snelling has has done a ton of research and and i'm not getting into all this people can go look up these articles um, look up polonium radio halos and the escape rates of of helium and what you're going to find is that the reason why he he says that You saw a change in the rate of decay.

It's sped up many many many times Was because during a catastrophic time like the flood

When when the earth changed tremendously in that time period We have evidence of of an extreme change in in decay rates in terms of how the decay occurred

And it has to do these polonium radio halos. I wouldn't do anybody any service today trying to explain it all

It's better to go read the article and see Why he came to that conclusion? Having having said all that what

I was trying to get to yes, that's one assumption. That's a problem There is no way to verify that this that the decay rate has always been the same

For billions of years according to secular scientists But let's go to a second second problem

How do you know that the rock to begin with only started with only parent atoms and no daughter atoms?

Well, that's actually a very good question. One way we can do that is again through the um, azircon dating and several of the atoms are um

What is it called incompatible I know rubidium is incompatible and let me just pull up my notes real quick no, they they say that but but the reality is that's a major assumption that that is in one of one improvable and two um, we have actual data today of So, okay, let's let's back up for a moment.

What rocks are the only rocks that can be tested radiometric dating wise?

Um, i'm, sorry, I didn't quite get your question what what's the only type of rock that we can actually test um,

I believe igneous rocks. Yeah, it has to be it has to be lava flow, right and and So lava flow, it can't be anything sedimentary

No, sedimentary rocks can be can be taken can be tested Why because sedimentary rock is just a conglomeration of lots of rocks that are glued together by some massive

You know flood event that would have occurred about 4300 years ago but so When it comes to igneous rock, okay, we got igneous rock

Which means that there have actually been volcanic explosions that we've seen mount etna in italy we've seen

Mount saint helen we've seen a number of them And every one of those rocks that we have on camera forming literally forming

From the raw lava flow that is that cools They've tested those rocks And those rocks all date into the millions of years when we saw that they had formed between 30 and 60 years ago

It showed the catastrophic problems with assumptions in radiometric dating methods

All right. Sure. So if I can respond to that real quick. Yeah One thing that was noted is that actually mount pittsburgh, which we know erupted in 69

I think 70 was actually dated using argon argon dating and it was dated to the

Within a few months or a few years of the actual date. So, um, are you familiar with that study? yeah, i've not seen that study but uh

You know, one of the problems with radiometric dating is that especially with carbon Is you have labs that that can that will confirm the dates you want them to confirm?

So people who who do this for a living and I know a number of them that do when you take When you take rocks

Or bones and you go you get them radiometric radiometric tested You're you have to fill out a form that says what you believe these rocks to be um, and you actually cite that can you actually give me an example of that like um

Can you show me where it does that? Neocron, yeah, I could pull those up online pretty quickly.

So if you want those I I will send those to you um because because equally

Equally problematic would be what's happened to creation scientists as a result of this

There is the the famous time It was either university of arizona or it was one of the one of the universities in arizona if it wasn't that one

There were some dinosaur bones that were brought into the laboratory by a creationist Oh, yeah

Ken miller correct miller. I can't remember who it was. They lied about what the bones were.

They didn't say what kind of was right? And can I um just say real quick? Yeah creationists have to resort to lying

What does that say about them? I'm familiar with the um thing that you were talking about.

So i'm familiar with that quite well and um, this is um due to um, the shellac what they were actually dating was the shellac it was

Um polluted with that it was contaminated with that. So what they were actually doing was dating that shellac and so um again

Which dating are you talking about? Hold on because I do want to say something with what he just said You're you're saying when christians have to resort to lying what in that case?

What happened? He wasn't lying And yeah, so you admitted he was lying thing He was lying to prove that the secular scientists are lying

Now Because they come up with the number that he said Okay, and so the the thing is we you know, you you want to be careful with some of that now, um

You know and while i'm on i'll just go i'm gonna make a quick comment to the guy on twitter who's responding Um for some reason twitter thinks me asking the question.

Where do you get morality from is spam? Uh So I I haven't been responding to him because twitter has thinks that every response

I give Is spam so sorry about that, dude. Um, you're just gonna have to come in one of these times that we could talk about morality um so, um,

I don't know if we if you guys want to wrap up we get into textual criticism or Sure. So before we get into that i'm gonna um finish responding to this issue of creationist dishonesty

Again what they were doing it was contaminated with the shellac. So they were dating the shellac and not the actual dinosaur um, finally, um, that's the problem of the lab why why wouldn't they take the bone and and date the bone and and instead of using the excuse that was a

That was a handy cover -up afterwards Yeah, I was the problem is uh, by the way

Let's call it what it is right. Oh, it's contaminated. They always say it's contaminated when they need to Everything's contaminated with the whole thing.

It was contaminated. By the way. Can I just read real quick? Um from dr. Andrew stelling? Sure Um, here's what he says assets are and this goes back to the plutonium thing

As has already been shown in appendix 5 -8 -5 the existence of plutonium halos in these granite rocks, especially plutonium 218 and plutonium 214 radio halos

Because of the extremely short half -lives of these isotopes has a direct implication As to the time scale for cooling of these granite plutonium excuse me plutons

The survival of the plutonium isotopes in the formation of these plutonium halos places a severe

Time scale limit of 6 to 10 days on the cooling of the granite pluton from 400 degrees celsius or more

Down to the ambient temperatures at the near surface crust level at which these plutons have been

Placed this results in the problem of removing the enormous quantity of heat involved from the huge volume specifically to the order of 200 to 500 kilometers cubed of each granite pluton within 6 to 10 days

And I emphasize removal such removal requires heat Dispensation at at least six orders of magnitude greater than currently postulated by conventional wisdom however, the existence of the plutonium and uranium 238 halos together have generated

Concurrently implies nuclear decay had to have been accelerated But of course it doesn't

So to put this heat problem into perspective We can do a rough estimate of the effects of just the accelerated nuclear decay

Say 500 million years worth at today's rate, but instead taking place in a single year the flood year

The following values of the relevant parameters were obtained from stacy 1992 The typical heat production weights and a granite pluton for the radioactive decay of uranium thorium and potassium is about 10 to the negative 9

Watts per kilogram the specific heat of granite is about 700 joules

Kilogram and the number of seconds in 500 million years is 1 .6 times 10 to the 16 seconds

Thus the ambient temperature rise using this formula again. This is dr. Andrews telling smath he states about 22 ,400 degrees kelvin which is equivalent to a temperature rise of more than 22 ,000 degrees celsius which is sufficient of course to vaporize a granite pluton many times over and this is of course about three times

Hotter than the surface of the sun. So what dr. Snelling and the rate project are

Postulating simply is impossible physically. Um, just the heat problem is just far too much to overcome

So here's so let me so this is a great demonstration of the difference between a a truthful scientist a creation scientist versus the

Lying scientists of the secular world andrew snelling says look Here we see here.

We see evidence of of this of decay rate being sped up according to my math

The temperatures must be really high. I'm not sure how this occurred Because it was in the past I'm, not sure

And so all we have is the clues of today But what we do know is that the decay rate absolutely was accelerated based on the polonium radio halos

So that's what he's saying. I'm giving people very dumbed down versions, but he's saying look I get it.

I don't understand this and guess why because I wasn't there 4300 years ago to do any measurements to see what was going on He's being honest when he's saying that unlike secular scientists

We're putting fudge factors and just making things up as they go along I mean, this is the battle we have as creationists is we have to battle

We have to battle when when secular scientists say things that they call facts and they aren't actually facts

They call them observable science when nobody's observed them. I mean, this is the battle, you know I I hope you're seeing this david.

I mean he's he's doing his best to be honest If I could respond to that real quick. Yeah, dr

Snelling is not an honest man and I can prove that too Is that while he was working for answers in genesis and preaching his young earth creationism

He was actually getting his stuff published in peer -reviewed journals and he states this is one of the quote verveum the archaean basement consists of domes of granites and granite

Genesis, uh near the outcropping five kilometers to the north some of the lower most overlying uh, the proto -zero

Eta sapiens were accredited to these domes during the Oh, excuse me, um raid, um at um one about 1087 to 1800 billion years ago

Um, so and the uh, when dr. Snelling publishes in his secular literature, he agrees with the millions of years times

He'll learn another one. Um Yeah, so he he's actually in his own peer -reviewed paper that he's published while working for answers in genesis actually pretty much

States and admits that this was about 1870 to 1800 million years ago and I kind of I find that so dishonest

Can I ask a question anthony and yeah, go ahead. Okay. Um What does it matter if there's dishonesty in your worldview?

I'm, i'm trying to figure this out because you have went I said it last time and i'll say it this time You're you're trying to kill kill somebody by a thousand cuts of paper

I mean you have went to every single source, but you will not admit that any one of them could have been speculating

Hypothesizing that any of them could be wrong in any of their studies or anything It's just the massive dump of everyone has said this.

However, I want to know What's your outcome here? Are you actually trying to? to to uh, get us to worship science as if you know, we we don't have

A standard for truth. I mean The reason i'm asking this is because you spent you spent an hour and 20 minutes and then two hours last time

And the only thing you've done is dumped out load after load after load Of conversation with all of these other papers

And then here at the end you're saying well I care about truth What does truth matter in your worldview?

Can you can you? Define where is where's a moral standard here? All right, so look the truth is what the facts are and the facts are what the evidence shows

And the evidence is found by doing the research and the researchers then go on and publish their results in the peer -reviewed journals the point that i'm trying to make here is that We have an objective way of actually, um

Determining reality and that is through the scientific method and rigorous testing and all of that.

So Here's the thing And I can cite many more examples of creationist dishonesty

But would you actually agree that it is dishonest to be taught to be preaching young earth creationism while publishing in the peer -reviewed literature

Um that yeah, this is definitely millions and millions of years old. Do you find that dishonest? I knew you were going to go down that road.

Yeah. No, no Go ahead. Go ahead. No, I mean i'll say is it dishonest? Depends on the context he could say this is what secular scientists say

Yeah That's not that's not You're talking about honesty, this is a question

I have from your opening You made a statement So you made the statement that a meteor hit the earth and caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, correct?

Yes, that is correct. And this has um been pretty proven. We know that the um, we have the shock crystals

We have the crater. Okay. So here's a simple question who saw that um

No one, okay, so so don't pretend that you're doing science Exactly. Okay, you you so you're trying to set yourself up on a moral high ground.

And what did you do? You're using Philosophy and calling it science and this is what people do

That's dishonest every time you try to take what anthony was referring to as historical

Science, that's philosophy. That's not science You're in a totally different field of study

And then you act like you got this moral high ground. Yeah, and you say everyone else is dishonest Well, every time you do that, you're proving your own dishonesty and every time you read the papers of people that are doing that That's their dishonesty

All right, if I can respond to that real quick more, can I respond to that real quick? Sure um, i'm going to do what is called a reducito ad absurdum to show why

This analogy is Completely wrong and all that So imagine you will if we have let me do it.

I'm just gonna i'm just gonna make a prediction watch folks We're gonna get a non -sequitur.

We're gonna get something that has nothing to do with what I said, but go ahead sure, so um imagine if we will um we're

Detectives in a murder case. We have the murder who actually saw that murder We didn't see that.

I went we don't have any eyewitnesses. So what do you call that historical science? Nobody saw it.

What we can do is we can take the pieces we can Say, okay. We have dna evidence.

We got um the um Gun, we got fingerprints that all point to this guy being the murderer

We don't have to What it would be um laughable if a guy got up in court and said he is being the historical science person

Um, nobody was actually there. They're just um interpreting the evidence in that light So so the thing is we have a very good way of actually looking at what happened in the past.

What is that called? One second real quick we see um Okay, we have this evidence of these fossils.

We have the evidence of um the impact crater we have these Progressors and around all around the world is a layer of uranium that marks the

Kt boundary Okay, I gotta ask a question I gotta jump right in because you you you're jumping all over the place to try to prove your argument

And and i'm going to tell you I was a police officer for eight years. Okay What you're talking about?

Justin hold on one second. Go ahead. Yeah, I I just want to say david. I I I mean Are you okay with him talking to here right now?

I have no problem sitting back and letting them Sure, go right ahead. Okay I just want to make sure

I want to be respectful to david and thank you for being on again tonight I mean, it's it's this is a great great topic I've really enjoyed this conversation.

I didn't want to try to shift but I don't know if we're going to get to it But but yeah, we're probably not going to get to shift Justin go ahead and uh, because I know you

Asked and I asked what kind of few weeks ago to to understand this really well because forensic science goes by another name, too

Well, I and and now think about this we're talking about when you're talking about forensic sciences you're talking about the measurable and testable, uh using the repeatable data now

When you start dealing with here and now You can do it in a forensic way to do a limited history data.

Now. Here's the problem with it Okay, you talked about your your historical data points and everything else.

Here's the problem with it after a certain period of time That's why we have cold cases because we can't figure out who did what and why they did it and we can't figure out

The narrative of what went on So in other words, so in other words when you start talking about the the empirical sciences of of of you know

Your scientific data that's going on today measurable testable repeatable events And then you try to jam those two with historical data and historical science

You're lying you're being disingenuous and you're being dishonest now i'm not trying to be mean to you

But i'm going to point it out this way I've sat here for two episodes and I watched you do this one thing.

Let me pull this up And this is hard for justin to do by the way to sit back and not talk You don't understand how how how hard it is.

I'm a pastor and I don't ever not talk But you talked about the three critical thinking questions

You didn't one time say these aren't my questions. These came from A gentleman here.

You didn't one time say they were anybody else's you acted as if it was yours Well, I do apologize.

Okay. I will I will take I'll i'll i'll learn that I will apologize to that Okay, if you thought that was a little bit dishonest on my part,

I know I should have but my point is this When you take things that don't belong to you, okay

Moral immoral whatever else and and the thing is is you're trying to stand on a moral high ground

And you're trying to hold on to oh this peer -reviewed paper this peer -reviewed paper and yet you deny the very fact

That there are other peers within the scientific community that are just as well educated and just as well studied who disagree even within the atheistic community the uh,

The big bang cosmology community all these different theories you act as if there's a uniform teaching

That no one can disagree with this one thing and if we do then you must be a whack job creationist

And i'm, sorry, but as creationists we will sit here and say We don't know everything and we do not try to take a moral high ground that the scriptures don't take

We're not trying to take a take a philosophical high ground that the scriptures don't take And and i'm just going to leave it at that for a moment.

And I David didn't do a non -sequitur But he also actually didn't do a reducing to absurdity

Um, but you did prove my point very well that you're not doing science in your example

You're you're doing philosophy. It's a forensic science You're taking a look at the evidence you have and you're trying to guess a storyline or a narrative to figure out

Does the evidence lead to whodunit? And that's what we do and that's how it's done.

We And that's not that is not the scientific method. Is it? Like they the entire high and scientific method is make an observation and Create hypotheses and do experimentation so, um

We have this dead body who did this. That's the question. You're at a dead body and you create that that dead body

Well, that's what we want to figure out. How did this dead body? Notice what he just did folks notice what he did, right?

I asked can he recreate the dead body and he just went to dishonesty in going Oh, well, that's what we did.

No, those are two different things well You are better in the sense than your your friend leo who's just completely arrogant and ignorant

In you know, he may have studied what other people have said and he can regurgitate it Well, you at least were trying to engage with anthony.

You're you were trying to say, okay Let me hear what you're saying. That is good But you still struggle with the same ignorant arrogance that he struggles with to a certain level

And i'm saying that not to be insulting but to help you Because you're never going to come to truth

As long as you're going to use confirmation bias as your measurement for everything If you're going to ignore everything that doesn't fit with your with what you want to be true

You're never going to come to truth and anthony even tried to point that out to you with andrew snelling Who's saying

I don't understand this but this is where what i'm seeing You're not doing that when you get to things that it's like well, this guy says it this guy says it

Well, that's that's appealing to authority. I mean, I i've called called out several of the different Logical fallacies that you've done.

So here's a really simple thing if you have to use logical fallacies Then your arguments are invalid

Yeah, that is called the fallacy fallacy, by the way, assuming that the conclusion is invalid because there is a um,

Logical fallacy. No, it's the way logic works See the way logic works is when you make an argument that's logically valid right

Then you you have a valid argument when you make one invalid. In other words, you use a fallacy to make your point

It's invalid That's the way logic works See what he's trying to say to you is that when you started talking about well, we've got a dead body

Okay, and you start talking about historical sciences where you can actually in the present

Look at the dead body and determine certain aspects, right? You can't you can't tell you know, how much the guy liked to jog

Right, of course, and that's not the point Wait, wait a second. Hold on The point is is if you go back 6 000 years, you don't have a dead body

Okay, you don't have a dead body. You have speculation You're thinking oh, this is what the dinosaur looked like and this is what he he he ate and this is you know

This was his best friend and they went fishing over here in this pond and i'm being i'm being you know hysterical about it, but or crazy about it and But but the point is is just like the the you can't tell if this guy was running or not

Or how much he liked to run you can't tell anything about that dinosaur than he has bones okay, and and so the point is

You don't have the bones to tell us everything that you're speculating You're you're you're basically

You're you're basically trying to make up a narrative to fit the story that you already have come up with yeah, and and that's what confirmation bias is but So david,

I want to get into some things you said last week. Okay. Sure. So so Uh, you said you're jewish.

What type of judaism? Um, i'm kind of reformed humanist judaism now Okay So it'd be more of like a reformed judaism.

Yes. Okay All right Um, you said textual criticism is what got you to not believe christianity was true.

Can you define textual criticism? yes, textual criticism is the method of comparing the manuscripts and Figuring out.

Okay, let's piece this together um Okay, which one goes here which one doesn't here are the textual variations which one?

Um best fits what the original might have said Okay so for folks to that want to know the actual definition textual criticism is the science to get back to the original words of a

Manuscript or of a document in the case of the bible is to try to get back to the original words and meaning of the

Manuscript doesn't The dealing with variants are and by product of it.

It's not the definition So, okay. So how do we do textual criticism? Um, sure so we can

Look at all the various manuscripts. Okay, which one is older? Which one is more recent? um, which one um, what is the most likely answer to what the original text said

What does the age have to do with anything? well, the Earlier ones are probably going to be more reliable than the later ones why

Because they're closer to the original source Okay, and what would how would that play out then?

um So again, look at what the earlier manuscripts say And all that so if the earlier manuscripts

Leave out this verse, but the later manuscripts added in You can kind of conclude.

Okay, maybe this was added in later. Maybe a scribal Person decided to add in like the story of the perk of the adultery

And it does not exist in the earlier manuscripts and when the gospel of mark the last 12, um the last couple of verses um

Kind of um also Has some serious problems the earlier manuscripts do not contain the last portion of mark and other manuscripts have a completely different ending to it so Let me try to clean that up for you

The reason for the age is that over time people will make copies handwritten copies

The later the time the more chance of something being of having a scribal error occur

Correct. That's why the earlier manuscripts Are are seen to be are usually seem to be

The ones that we're going to go with but that's not the only only thing. So what what else do we use in this area?

of science Culture Sure. So one of the other things we could do is look at the quotations for the early church fathers and say, okay

How did they quote this verse or if they quoted it at all? And how does that play out how does that help them sure, so if we have

There's an unknown verse here we can look to the church fathers to say if they because if the church fathers in the

Early first couple centuries were quoting this verse that means that this has a limiting factor of when this verse had to be of written so Okay, and for folks who are watching just so you know, uh early church fathers are not really used in textual criticism other than a tertiary type of study

Because of the fact that most of the early church fathers were paraphrasing quoting from memory

Uh, so they wouldn't be relied on for textual criticism for that reason Do you understand what are some of the other ways that we would do this science?

um kind of thing um We would I guess appeal to tradition from the different churches

Okay, that that's again That would be not in the realm of what we would use for textual criticism.

That would be just like in the last category The early church fathers where we would put that as it's giving support, but it's not the primary way of doing it

Okay So there's three areas Okay um And i'm asking these questions because if this is something that was so convincing to you

That you were convinced christianity was was wrong um and and don't understand the study of it

Then you really are when every time you say textual criticism prove to you that christianity was wrong

And yet you don't understand what textual criticism actually is whether in definition or in the study of the science of it how we do it

It exposes that every time you make that statement because I know you know, honesty is important to you

Every time you say that you're telling a lie Because you don't understand textual criticism well enough to make that statement that that convinced you

Maybe you read some books from bart ehrman And because it seems what you do a lot is you read what others say

You adapt it for yourself and then say well, that's proof. That's it. That's it. Everything's right there because someone you agree with Uh said something and yet you only read one side is going to be my guess um

What are the the two factors when you talk about a variant? um

What are the two issues with variances do you know what yeah sure so in all reality the vast vast vast majority of Variants are rather meaningless.

Um It's mostly um As spelling variants, which doesn't even change the meaning and most of the time it can't even be translated

And so 75 are spelling and then um A lot of the other ones

I guess are um getting words backwards Like instead of jesus christ it says christ jesus, correct word ordering things like that So so we we're going to use this in terms of what's called viable and meaningful.

Okay? Meaningful means that the meaning changed, right? And can I get an example of that?

Sure, i'll give you actually I had an example that i'm going to be preaching this sunday That's both meaningful and viable.

But do you have one you want to give you're saying? Yeah, one that has actually been very meaningful and viable is in the

Chapter of mark at the very end of mark chapter one Jesus heals a leper and there's a textual variation of whether or not he was angry or Compassionate because the way that you read that text really changes if you read it as compassion or anger that's one and that one actually

Uh, we would end up saying that the the word would be anger Correct because of the fact that the compassion seems to soften it

Which means that you probably have someone who wrote something in and softened it so and that's

That's actually what the um, one of the things that I love about the next bible the net second edition is that it actually does

Really go in depth. Um, but one second real quick One second, it explains it has the the net new new english translation uh is

A very good translation because what it's going to do Uh, daniel wallace is the editor This is his his specialty is is textual criticism.

So what you're going to get with an net bible is you're getting the Basically the reasons the argumentation for choosing one word in english over another uh, however

The question becomes is it that one may be viable, but is it meaningful in other words?

The meaning what's what's being communicated in that particular passage is the fact that there was a great amount of emotion involved

And both words convey that so The the that one word is not changing the meaning of the context around it

Okay So that is that is maybe a viable one viable meaning. We can't get back to the original meaningful

Meaning that the the meaning changed so let me give you the example Uh from bart ehrman now if you're going to write a new york times bestseller

David, do you would you agree that you want to put your best argument? forward Of course you do if you want to um be taken um, seriously, yeah, you have to put your best foot forward and um evaluate that you're evaluated correctly it might not sell well, but um

If you want to be taken seriously, you should put your best foot forward and put in the best arguments And I am and I actually do criticize bart ehrman.

Um, pretty much I have seen some of his debates where he just Where I know he says it's wrong what he's saying.

I know is wrong um, I think in one of his debates in the early resurrection in all when he talks about The earliest sources being the gospels, which of course is not true

We have evidence of the earliest sources are actually um Paul's own writing where he talks about the resurrection.

So the gospels are not the earliest. Um Sources for the resurrection. So that's something that bart ehrman gets wrong and which which uh

Which book is the earliest that talks about the resurrection? um, I think um

I I can think of right off the top. I had I want to say colossians Or romans one or the other because there's a

Statement by paul that either one of those there were two gospels written before either one of those So maybe might not might need to find a different book.

Yeah, sure So I I know I kind of date the the earliest gospel is mark.

That's for sure How do you know that's for sure? Um, well for one thing that that's what all the scholars

Agree on um Don't agree on that all the liberal scholars do do you know why they agree on that?

well, because mark is the least embellished and um Is probably an assumption that they all embellished it and another and another thing is um

The other gospels seem to be copying using mark as a source Okay So you believe they used it as a source?

Yeah, not necessarily a bad thing So, let me let me ask you a question. Um Is there are what are the sources that we would have that joe biden is president elect

Well, we have the entire news media pretty much. Um every single who they copy it from um each from the associate pretty much from the associate press when they um

Called it provided. Well, then why don't they all have the same map as the associated press? Well, they do

Yeah Some have arizona called some don't some have georgia some don't

Oh, yeah, that's because um, they have different methods for Wouldn't it make more sense that they're all looking at the same data the the that is being from the counties and they're all

If you you watch any channel election night, they're all calling different states at different times

They're not doing it based on what the others are saying it They're doing it based on the fact that they're all going back to the original source

They're going back to the counties and looking at the numbers or they're going to the to the

Polling that they do after the the exits when people exit from the poll from voting, right?

They're all looking at that when they write their stories They're coming up if if biden gives a message he gets up and and speaks

How come they all have similarity In all the papers when they report on what biden said

Well, there's a recording As they're quoting him verbatim No, but yet they're not quoting him from bay.

They're they're explaining the events that that occur Why because they were eyewitnesses?

Some of those articles are going to be longer than others. Some are going to include details that others won't So so the idea that there has to be a source mark which

You know, the reason that they say mark is the earliest is because it's the shortest

They also think that there's one called q or quellem Yeah, I actually I would I would actually

I actually strongly I actually strongly disagree with the q's worst hypothesis Well, you have to because there's no evidence of it

Which is why I disagree with it yet. You hold on to Arguments that are based on qlm.

So The the thing though is here and I want you to see this What you end up arguing is that you had to have?

Mark written first why you said because the others embellished it And yet you wouldn't do that same article that same thing with any article written today on any event

That you have in papers why because there are eyewitnesses to an event and they all report it differently

Matthew probably was the first uh gospel Well, I'm just out of curiosity.

Why is why do you consider matthew the first gospel? Because matthew is written to jewish people

And if it was written later It wouldn't make any sense to when when christianity was no longer having the jewish so much of a jewish influence

It wouldn't make sense to write to jewish people Later when there's not the jewish influence

So it it makes the most sense that matthew is the first one written because matthew was written to a jewish audience

Which would put it earlier in the in the life of the church Okay, and that's it and uh, wasn't john also written to a jews.

I can't remember what audience was waiting for No, john wrote much later Uh, he would have been the last of the the four gospels and all of his writings are at the end

So here's an example of of what bart ehrman gives for the best argument for something

To say that we cannot know what the bible means um, this is adam mark chapter 6 verse 3

When they say when jesus comes to his hometown and they say is this not the carpenter? The son of mary the brother of james joses and judas and simon so the issue that he brings up and there's a textual variant here

Uh some there some of the manuscripts will say that jesus is the son of a carpenter

And some say he's the carpenter right Now we cannot get back to the original.

We We don't know which one this actually said and it does change the meaning He's either a carpenter or the son of a carpenter.

He could be both That is an option However, here's the simple question and bart ehrman even says this in his paperback edition first first edition paperback of his book misquoting jesus

In the epilogue now, they removed it from the second edition, but in the first edition he admitted there is not a single christian doctrine

That is affected by any of these variants so You made the statement that because of textual criticism you knew christianity was wrong yet experts in the field even those that disagree with christianity

Acknowledge that there's not a single christian doctrine that's affected by any of these variants

So how exactly? Could something that doesn't affect any of the teaching of christianity?

Convince you that christianity is wrong That's an excellent question so obviously the word of god is

If the bible is the word of god It would be perfect and free from error. It would be in fact it had to be infallible um, and if there are some of these significant issues like um, the pericope adultery and um the last ending of mark

How how can it be perfect? Oh, that's easily answered because you you may you made a mistake there Okay, what's the mistake

We don't have we're not looking at the original are we? Yeah, so, um, okay so It was without error

So if I could respond to that real quick, here's the thing was god not powerful enough to um,

Make sure that his word was free from error. Couldn't god certainly god would have saw it fit to um, make sure that the um,

Autograph is perfect and preserved and that I'm, i'm sure if god was powerful.

It was all powerful. He could do that Okay, and again, you you said the autograph in the autograph

We would say yes, we're not looking at the autograph though Yeah, so if I can copies that were written that were copied by men

Right. So if I can draw an analogy real quick Um, imagine if the united states constitution was written 2 000 years ago

And all what we have are these later fragments and they all said one said that the second amendment

Shall not be infringed and another says shall be infringed in another This is the stuff that i'm struggling with personally clearly the shall not would be wrong

Yeah The way you word it but no, you know,

I I gotta say one thing before andrew answers david I I'm and i'm dead serious about this

You know more You know more about christianity Than most christians

I talk to even in churches. I agree that I I I I mean be honest with us

What are you what's going on in your life that is causing you to continually willfully reject that god, you know exists

What what sin are you holding on to what package of sins are you holding on to? What is going on?

I mean, I honestly or what happened to you in church. Yeah Growing up.

I I am so I am so disturbed by by listening to you a nice guy Who's full of knowledge who's clearly running from the god he knows exists, you know the stuff you're you know

What we're talking about is true, you know The stuff you're talking about is a bunch of hooey like I can tell I can read it in your eyes

I what what is what that's not a very good argument No, I know that but I mean seriously

I'm, not trying to make a good argument right now. I'm trying to appeal to david who obviously obviously has knowledge

I just don't I just What I wanted to ask you Since you brought it up is you know, my question is what happened to you when you were growing up in church?

Yeah, like what? Like what do you mean what happened? I'm assuming and the reason i'm assuming this is because this almost always is the case uh when

I see someone that understands christianity and Says they grew up in a church, especially if it's an you know

Ifb church because I think is that correct? You grew up independent fundamentalist baptist. Is that what yes, that is correct

So Andrew too, by the way, he grew up ifb. So well, no, I didn't grow up ifb. I I grew up jewish

But either if you guys consider yourself ifb now just out of curiosity, uh I would be fundamental.

I Let's put it this way. I'd be an independent. I'd be a fundamentalist and i'd be a baptist But I wouldn't be part of the ifb there you go.

He's a fundy As as frank used to say he's a fundy so So the question is did something happen to you growing up in church?

Was there? Is it A very legalistic church you're responding to that.

Did something happen in church because typically that's what I end up seeing is that typically

People like you That i'm going to come across Are really rebelling against their upbringing

Yeah All right, perhaps there should be um a better topic off air.

Yeah, and then I would Rather talk about that off air if you That's fine. We can do that.

Yeah You want to I do want to do that? Um, so so let me let me finish with what we're saying then so so here

Here's the thing When you you saying That textual criticism convinced you

That christianity is wrong and yet experts in the field Admit that there's no doctrine that's affected now

If you're you bring up You know the autographs the autographs were without error

And you said god have kept them could god have preserved them. So let me use the words that you want to use

The word would be preserve. Okay so You're you're saying could god have preserved it?

Yes, he could have had he wanted to However, unlike islam now islam has a problem because islam says that god did preserve the original in arabic

All right Yeah, and the korans do have variants

What is interesting actually is that there was a quran that is carbon dated to the life of muhammad

We don't have anything like that for christianity. We don't have any um Major fragments or of the new testament that dates back to the time of the new testament

Uh, that's not exactly true. No We have uh two manuscripts

Uh one very small um that is dated, uh

About uh about the time of john P 52, right? Well p 52 is going to be

P 52 is about I think 135 so that's going to be one generation

Very early second century probably second generation. Yeah, but we do have uh, we've there are some discoveries and of within uh the 80s which would

Could still be within the time of of john's writings now Here's the thing we also have a ton of manuscripts that haven't been cataloged

All right so We have now there's certain things we're going to look for if we're going to look for a manuscript that may be dated to the original

Right to the original. Uh, they're not going to have punctuation. They're not going to have verses things like that um

Because all those came later It was kind of more like the original kind of like was more reading like a novel without any chapters or division or anything like that Yeah, you know one of the one of the things you're going to see is whether it's in a scroll or a book

You know, one of the only times christianity was ahead of the curve technology wise Was that christianity was the first ones to put things in book form because it was easier to carry than scrolls but so But here's the thing

When we look at the textual criticism When you look at all the variances now god never said he was going to preserve his word uh

Letter by letter in its copies. It was never said Okay so It was that as they were copied.

Yes, there were mistakes errors made by the copyist why For a very simple reason because the people that were making the copies were in a rush because the message was so important They wanted that message to get out as widely as they could and so copy

Was a process that done in the old testament was a very tedious slow process

But the message of jesus christ was so important that they wanted to get it out everywhere

Now the advantage is that's why we have so many manuscripts. So you mentioned the date

When it comes to textual criticism when we do textual criticism, the date is one factor a second factor is

The where it is in the world Okay, geographically why because if you see

You know everywhere in egypt has the same Reading and everywhere else in the world doesn't have that reading you start to assume that okay

This is not the proper reading because it was something that only affected this area and that's a safe assumption to make one of the

My fourth question how warranted is the assumption? So that's a good that's a good example of an assumption that is quite warranted quite warranted right same way with the indian nation.

It's quite Warranted to assume that it will be softened rather than hardened. So these are what i'm talking about with the safe assumptions yeah, and now so there's

One other thing that you want to look at and that's the number of manuscripts the reason number of manuscripts is important Is because the number of manuscripts help us to see especially when we start to see how many of these have variances and things

We can start to see If someone made it made something word order different here or there

Okay, we can start to say okay how how many of the manuscripts have that the other thing the number of manuscripts tell us

Is the more manuscripts we have the more we end up looking at The basically how many where the variances are

We we have so many manuscripts now that it's not When we find more manuscripts, we don't find more variances

As much more right and there's more Manuscripts for the new testament than any other book in antiquity not even close not even close.

Okay And not only that We have a closer we have the dating so close.

I know anthony i'm i'm like shocked because he understands that Yeah, because most christians don't you we also have them so much closer

I mean that you look at julius caesar. No one questions the events of julius caesar Right and the closest document we have from the writing to the time it occurred is like 1500 years, right?

Okay, yet we have copies manuscripts of the bible within We have a lot within the first 300 years.

We have um, I think it's about 318 manuscripts within the first 300 years

So we have a lot of early ones Now when we put all that together what we end up with is the fact that none of this affects doctrine

So You end up looking and I I did the numbers If you if you get my book, what do what do they believe or what do we believe?

I actually ran the numbers of all the textual variances in in the the different manuscripts Okay, and it's 99 .98

Accurate as a conservative number now. Why am I saying a conservative number? We basically are looking if you take the number the most conservative number used is that one percent of those variances are viable and meaningful

And that's the most important category because that's the category that would tell us we can't get back to the original and the meaning changed

Not a single one of them affects any christian doctrine. It's things like being a carpenter or the son of a carpenter

Both can be true in that in that example, but that doesn't affect any christian doctrine

Yeah, by the way, uh, one thing that I would say that I think does affect christian doctrine is

I think uh, maybe you can give me one of the examples that you think would be in the gospel of luke doesn't say, um,

What does jesus say which is poured out for you or not? That's when you agree that that's uh, which which uh,

Which verse are you thinking? Oh, because I can't

I can't speak to son. I don't I don't I see here Words for you, uh, but while i'm looking that up, okay, here we go.

Um, and so Luke 22 20.

Um, this is a cup poured out for you in the new covenant. Um, Looks like the any team does not have any notes with that um, and I This is a cup poured out for you, but I do know that there is that um

Issue, okay. I maybe maybe on another week. We could look at that only because i'm not familiar with the variant So i'd have to go look it up Yeah, so what when you

What would you think is a viable? Um meaningful and viable. Well, I gave

I gave you one is, you know, whether he's the son of a carpenter or carpenter Yeah, the meaning actually changes if he's the son of a carpenter.

It's referring to his father Right being the carpenter or is he the actual carpenter? The we can't get back to the original but again

It gets back to the that there's no doctrine affected by this. So the study of christian of textual criticism

Ends up supporting christianity not diminishing it. So when you say that that it convinced you

That christianity is wrong and yet we end up looking at this And and seeing that when we put all the evidence together

It shows that the the the bible we have today is very accurate now. I gave you the number of one percent

In a class I was in with with dr. Dan wallace who is an expert in this field

Okay He says that the number with all the new manuscripts we have and all the new

That all the new because most people are still using the numbers from the 80s We have about 8 000 manuscripts now not 5 000 and as we've looked at them

We end up looking and and that's the manuscripts in greek, by the way that when we end up looking at them

We end up realizing he he says the number is one fifth of one percent

So we're talking a small number I mean If you put up the the scientists that you hold to and you believe even though they keep changing their conclusions year over year and Yet the more we study the scriptures the more it's getting more accurate

If if I can respond to that real quick um Isn't that a good thing if scientists, um

Find more data that um, and they have to and are forced to revise their conclusions based on the new data

Is don't you think that's a good thing? well it when they the the issue there is when they say that something is absolute and they know it to be true because they've

Done the science and then it's proven to be false And then they say the new thing is absolute And we don't but we don't teach ethos anymore

Einstein proved there was no ethos, but that was an absolute You're you you've made statements that are you make absolute statements and you say it as if you know it to be true

And so the thing is when you do that okay, and yet You're you're then saying but the bible's wrong

But the more we study the bible the more support it says for its accuracy. You don't have that with the science

Right this the science that you're using and when I say the science i'm talking the philosophy of science not actual science

But when we have the philosophy of science what you end up seeing is oh, this is this is true No, that's not true.

Now. This is true Well, and it builds on top of each other and it's always continuously building

Rather than looking at it and saying this is an error. We're going to discard that and we're going to look for a different pathway

We we say this is an error. Oh, but let's build on top of that because we've got the articles.

Well, let me just uh, Someone corrected I said the wrong word here. So I meant ether So, okay um, thank you for the correction there, so You see the point is is that I i'm questioning how you could say that textual criticism could convince you that christianity is wrong when that Like that's a leap

And i'm trying to figure that out if I could respond to that. I think it's that I I think looking back.

I think there's a lot of different factors textual criticism and including Contradictions and the new testament in the bible that I think do matter and um

You can get into that maybe in a different stream because for um, we're already over two hours Yeah, so and and I always hear about contradictions and yet no one can ever name

I I actually have gone through and seen a list on on an atheist website of 400 contradictions in the bible

One of them was Yeah, but a lot of I think a lot of atheists don't even know what a contradiction is

A contradiction is when you have two statements that cannot both be true at the same time, correct?

So, um, so if you have if you have one account talking about 10 lepers that were healed

And one account that talks about one leper that was healed. It doesn't mean the other nine weren't healed

It just means that he's dealing with the one Right, and it's and it's the same way. It is the same way also with Matthew and luke.

Matthew wants to focus on the wiseman Luke wants to focus on the shepherds. Those are not contradictions, correct?

Yeah, so so I yeah, so maybe we we all you know, it would be good to go through. Uh, What you see is the contradictions in the bible um and That might be an interesting discussion um,

I definitely was curious because I thought that I heard and maybe I got it either from Anthony or justin or or just assumed it from The stuff that you guys were sending back and forth

But for some reason I thought someone said that you were an orthodox jewish person that you're in orthodox judaism

It was orthodox. Yes, but i'm not orthodox anymore Okay. Yeah, I was gonna say because I I mean right off the bat

I was I saw the show last week and went, uh, he's not wearing a kippah. He's not orthodox He used to be orthodox, so, uh, yeah, i'm not orthodox anymore for a host of reasons

Um, but that's a different topic for a different day. Yeah Well, let's we'll end out the show.

Um, let me just give the first david give you a chance to say any closing comments that you want to then then anthony and then uh,

You know, we'll close out and and don't drop off too quickly because you don't want chat offline me

Let's chat a little bit offline. By the way. I will say that there is for those who are interested in open mic

Um after show coming on my channel right after this Um, probably a few minutes after the stream ends is when my after show will begin it's a time for open discussion and Um, just whatever

So y 'all are invited as well But I do want to speak to you guys. What's your show?

Yeah, no, i'm gonna i'll put the link in because I just grabbed it. Okay. It's just um

Just that just an open mic. I think like open topic Okay, so so I just dropped the link into the after show yep, of course

Twitter twitter may you know market as spam Yeah, I don't know what's going on with twitter

Yeah. All right. So so david any closing comments you want to make? Um, no, just um, thank you guys so much for having me back one.

Um, Definitely love to come back to talk about maybe Um, I don't want to kind of filibuster the time with 52 contradictions so maybe we can take a look at The four contradictions that I think are most damning to christianity.

So I think that would be a good place to start um and all of that When you guys like that, yeah, send them send them over to me

Anthony any closing comments? Yeah, you know what as always People don't reject god because of science

They reject god because of their sin and I mean it's it's the bottom line and you know, one of the things that I know andrew and I we both teach on in evangelism is is that uh we can't convince people based on the science and it's and it's because that We always have different starting points and our different starting points are going to cause us

Look, look at the exact same things the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions based on our starting points

And uh, it's clear you know today and and last time that that david and I look at The exact same evidence today and have different conclusions.

So it's not about the science. I love talking about the science I think it's a lot of fun and uh, and and I choose to do that and not do precept which you know

I prefer precept but we do the evidences because we we want people to learn and and see um that it's

This the good science out there Is all in favor of christianity

Every bit of it is and uh, and we can show that time and time and time again

Having said all that, you know, I just ask for people to pray for david because he obviously has a ton of knowledge

Uh, david is running from god. I don't know why and uh, I just pray that god grants him repentance and faith

And brings him in a kingdom because if I see the type of zeal I see today and last week with him

Well, he could be what an amazing apologist for for god So, uh, so yeah, that's it

And you know, I just we're gonna end out the show. Uh, david. We appreciate you coming in. I I think that um

Kind of with what anthony was saying what how I wanted to end is You don't have an evidence problem

You have a spiritual problem and I think that what what you display, um

Um, you know, I want to say this in a way you understand this is I want you to understand

The most important thing is Where you're going to spend eternity Okay, eternity is a very long time to be wrong

And to run from god What I see what I see you doing

Is I see you grabbing lots of things from lots of people Grabbing lots of papers and and things

But you read one it seems you're reading one side of an argument and You're looking at everything through uh, it seems a lens where You know, you may be struggling with confirmation bias now, that's something you have to decide on your own.

You have to examine yourself But the reality is David you and I both

Rightly deserve eternity in the lake or fire because both of us break god's law

Okay, both of us And neither one of us deserve eternal life

God himself provided that god himself came to earth and died in our place And the thing

I don't want to have you hear the moment you die Is to hear the judgment of god

I I Want to see you Come to repentance Does that mean your friends will ridicule you yes, it does probably will you know, um

But the reality is is You you have to recognize. What is truth?

and When we run from god, we're running from truth Because we can't know truth apart from god

God is the source of truth So what's true? What purports to his nature?

So when we ignore him or run from him, we're actually running from the truth

Because there is no way to say well we have truth without him

To say okay. Well, this is the way the facts are and yet what we saw throughout the whole night

Was in an interpretation of facts and calling it truth Instead of saying well, this is what is actually the facts actually are

See, there's a lot of philosophy in there. And that's the thing That I I see a lot with you.

So I i'm praying I ask everyone else to pray That uh, david and and leo as well would come to repentance

Our our concern is where you spend eternity um you know I think that uh

The conversation was good and I and it and should continue Um, but we're going to be praying for your soul.

So that's all we have for tonight. Um, For apologetics live next week.

We're going to do something. I just don't have my schedule in front of me. So thanksgiving Oh, no, we're not doing anything next week.

We're gonna be eating thanksgiving dinner Alone because you're not allowed to do it with family Uh, yeah watch

So, um, okay everybody's invited to my house and uh But uh, we will have one the week after I just don't remember the topic um