Open Q&A on Biblical Creation with Professor Andy McIntosh and Dr. Anthony R Silvestro, Jr.

Many people have questions about God and the Bible with so many different views about God and how to interpret the Bible Many people wonder where they can turn to get biblical answers

Well have no fear turn to my friend Andrew Rappaport and his friends on apologetics live They can answer any question you have about God in the

Bible check them out Thursday nights 8 to 10 o 'clock p .m New York time at apologetics live comm you can watch or join the discussion at apologetics live comm and challenge him with anything

Please ask him you're really hard questions and tell him Ben sent you Welcome to apologetics live we're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the

Bible meet your hosts from striving for eternity Ministries Andrew Rappaport, dr. Anthony Silvestro and pastor

Justin Pierce We are live apologetics live here to answer your challenging questions

Anything you have about God in the Bible has been said we are here ready to answer

Just remember I don't know is a perfectly good answer. Let me bring in dr.

Anthony special. How are you, sir? Oh Hold on I got turn your mic on for now

I'm gonna bring I'm gonna bring Andy in too so that we have your mic working so that we'll do that. Yeah So we do have this set where we're using

Andy's computer for your voice Anthony so we have to have him I forgot about that Well Well, I do know that English people

Pronounce one word properly Sure, if it's not creation the other part of the argument went in creation versus what?

Evolution correct. Thank you. See the British know that right? It's evil.

It's just evil So Anthony we're gonna do a show tonight.

Now. This is going to be an open QA. So we're gonna have time a lot of time for questions

We're already getting someone that's that's liking your accent. KT is saying a Brit So What we want to do is get people to come on in to ask questions tonight and so before we

Mentioned that I would let me ask you Anthony if you could first introduce Dr. And it's

Andy McIntosh. We're gonna get confused with Andrew Andy and Anthony tonight. I'm just Yeah, I'll have trouble with Andrew and Anthony Andy and Anthony So that's yeah

So I'm gonna let you introduce Andy and then also talk about what you want to do with the show

And then we're gonna get to I'm gonna give a quick update from last week And that's what instead of an in the news section.

I want to do an update from last week. So yeah, absolutely So so it's our pleasure to have professor

Andy McIntosh on tonight with us who is a professor He's got a bachelor's in applied mathematics and a

PhD theory of combustion So he's got a lot of really cool stuff that we'll be able to talk about tonight

Stuff on the bombardier beetle as well as other things and and what's really neat is I know you've been an adjunct professor with answers and Genesis or adjunct speaker right for instance

Genesis out in England, but You know so many people say creationists don't know anything that we can't do real science

Well, Andy is one of the guys that actually has real patents for doing real science as a creationist so I'm really excited for the show tonight and and He's a wealth of knowledge.

Please come in with your questions either in the in the chat for us or Or come on live on camera and be able to ask those questions live

And if you are not a believer or don't believe in the under creation We want you to come in to and ask

Andy all the hard questions tonight Yeah, I like how you said that ask Andy all the hard questions

Did you did you hear my my fellow my fellow Abrahamic tribal friend there in the intro.

I Did it? That is Ben Shapiro Or did that for you or or at least it's his voice

No, it is it is Ben Shapiro and that I was I used some

AI I was playing with it I figured I'll have a little fun and and as since I did a response to Ben I Someone's saying it's a deep fake.

Actually. It's not a deep fake technically a deep fake technically is when you're doing videos But it is it is a

I generated I so so Andy my background that I have is cybersecurity and Yeah, you should be

I'm actually when we do an update here. I'm gonna give I'm gonna do something that Anthony's probably wanted to know for a long time

I'm gonna reveal one tool only one that I've used That you can get on the internet to find things but that's gonna keep

Andy and Anthony in suspense So I'm the one that messed it up the saying calling Anthony Andy.

All right so now it's really funny because Melissa says

I feel a lawsuit coming that's gonna be really funny because I'm gonna talk about a lawsuit later. So What I want to do and what so we're gonna have to keep

Professor Andy up so that you can talk Anthony, so Which means we got to see his facial expressions with things

He has no idea what we're talking about because he didn't watch apologetics live last week He should have but he didn't.

All right. I want to give a quick update up. Were you gonna say something else Anthony? Yeah, so here's here's the thing we want to do a quick update because some things had happened since Last week and what

I want to do is I got about a five minute video of Clips from last week and we're gonna go through and talk about I want to just take 15 minutes to give an update because Some things had happened and some things have been claimed and we found out more

And so if you didn't watch last week's episode just real quick We're gonna we're gonna bring you up to speed but there was someone who responded to Justin Peters Criticizing him for a post he put on Instagram and he the basically the whole thing was that Justin left out context from a post that he put and Therefore he's really wrong.

He's dividing people even though what Justin said was something that other people That charismatics had said so the issue here that we were addressing is was that being fair?

And the answer I think we're gonna see is he wasn't we saw that in in the show

Let me just play this I'm gonna play a couple because the first part what I want to do is I want you to clearly see

Just grabbed a few clips that Zack is going to claim very clearly that Justin left out context.

He posted this post by itself. Just hear him in his own words I don't want to be accused of being wrong.

This is his own words He's been addressing just his audience. Does he have to also address the larger audience that could possibly be watching?

If he posts publicly after the fact and yes He posted that statement by itself at point is that Justin quoted himself from his own presentation and left it at that It's not my job to provide the call, you know, how did

I just look at Instagram and not seen anything else? I wouldn't know. Okay, first thing I didn't quote

Okay, so you heard him say over and over again and there's way more clips I could have used But here he's gonna say what his biggest issue is the biggest issue

He's gonna tell it twice Justin quoted himself from his own sermon divorce from any context and even in the sermon or presentation

But again, if there's context to the statement He left it out in the post and he didn't necessarily bring it up inside the sermon

He quoted that statement in and of itself by itself with no preceding context. No following context none whatsoever

Anybody that sees that statement by itself as he quoted he left that out And I think that was my biggest issue and I think exactly me ask you so you're you're saying the biggest issue you had was that Justin didn't provide contexts to The Instagram post, correct?

Mm -hmm Okay, so you see clearly He's saying the biggest issue was the lack of context from the

Instagram post The reason I bring this up is because if you watch that show again after this you're gonna see that there's there was some

Changing in this in the beginning of the show was all about the Instagram post that was lacking the post itself

I can't show you the post he had anymore because his whole

Facebook is down but he showed part of a post and so We end up seeing that he does know the context

Because he's even going to read so what we end up seeing is one of the things that happened was

That he he's the one that left out the the context I'm gonna show you the original post that he was referring to and show you where he cut it off So when we see this he shared this post and he shared this when you saw he shared this

He shared this and he put just the top of this and if you look it's there's the first Paragraph that he had and then he kept referring throughout throughout the show about the last word hashtag truth bomb

He cut the rest out. He didn't include this whole picture. Why might he have not have done that?

Well, because even though he read from Justin's sermon This came up during the discussion

But I want you guys to notice something it says quite clearly in the part that Zack left out in his criticism of Justin an excerpt of my sermon an excerpt of my sermon the modern

Christian resurgence at Kootenai Community Church Cessationist conference back in November the link to the sermon and more info upcoming

Cessation movie can be found in the link in my bio So he provided the context where you could get more

Context it was right there Zack was the one that left that out And so when we had this whole discussion and I want you to see what

I'm gonna play a little bit more of it So you can see that Zack was the one who left this out and then

I got some some something that came up That's really gonna shock you We have a low view of the

Holy Spirit That statement. Do you know where that comes from? Which one the low view of the

Holy Spirit towards who that's not toward anyone But where it originates this the statement that Justin is referring to what there's a context to yeah

I understand there's a context to it And I understand that it's from people that have accused him of having a low view of the

Holy Spirit and my whole point Behind that of course we watch this sermon is had he mentioned that It would have been my response probably would have been different, but he didn't mention that in his presentation

Which is why I took issue with it. So, okay. So he says he didn't mention it in his presentation and He did actually mention it in his presentation

And I wanted you notice though Zack left it out of his comments his post that he made he chopped off the the

Necessary part there what you end up seeing though What he ended up doing is he was making it very clear that he did find the sermon

He did read or listen to the sermon and we're gonna even hear him read part of the sermon that provided the context that he said was missing and So when we do apologetics, we have to realize that sometimes you go back in discussions like this and realize some things people say

What we ended up seeing is he claimed he didn't know the context but right there you heard him say he he knows the context

So he said anybody who sees this wouldn't know the context and yet he's he's saying this was so divisive

Because no context was given and yet he's saying he does know the context and does know that the people actually saying this quote

Were the charismatics? But the statement itself was divisive because they had no context

I'm harping on that for a reason because I'm gonna show you son Zack wrote that's gonna surprise you

I'll quote I'll quote this now. This is from Justin. This is Justin Why is it that the movement that claims to have the most intimate relationship with God the movement that claims dreams and visions from God in Signs and wonders the movement that claims to have the highest view of the

Holy Spirit Why is it this movement a charismatic movement? That is welcome home to the most brazen heretics the most prolific false prophets and most obvious charlatans and hucksters ever to ever disgrace the name of Christ why is it that those people find it welcoming home in the charismatic movement the very movement that claims to have the highest view of Excuse me the highest

Where cares might move the claims to have the highest view of an intimate relationship with God and the Holy Spirit as a cessationist

I see no ground to the charismatics in my new ecology and mine doctrine of the Holy Spirit as Cessationists you and I see no ground to the charismatics in our view of the

Holy Spirit It's not we who have a low view the Holy Spirit It is not we who have a low view of the

Holy Spirit It is day you have a low view of the Holy Spirit as a station this I do not believe That someone can be indwelling by the third person of the trying

God teach the things they teach utter the heresies they utter, exploit the poor, sick and desperate, and the widows, for personal financial gain, offer thousands of false prophecies, put words in God's mouth that he never said to be indwelt by the

Holy Spirit. So when he says that - Okay, so right there, what you end up seeing, whether you're a cessationist or a continuationist, there's one thing that you see there.

Justin, and he even read it, which shows that he knows the context. Justin said, hucksters, and is describing those hucksters.

So when he was claiming he didn't have the context and it's not provided, the context was provided and Zach left it out of his open letter, his open critique of Justin when he said that.

Now, the issue is that Zach believes that one must show context. And I wanna play this last bit because I'm gonna show you something that Zach himself says.

So the view of the Holy Spirit, it is not we who have a low view of the Holy Spirit, it is they, the charismatics, the charismatics, they, the charismatics, that have a low view of the

Holy Spirit. The charismatics who do what with regard to the we?

Oh, if only that was stated in the original Instagram post by itself. Okay, remember, it was stated in the original

Instagram post with a link. And there he's showing you the post. Toward the end of his post,

I don't know - You can't see it, but I should put it on screen so you could see it. Hashtag truth bomb, right there at the end.

Now watch him have to admit that he knew the context. I can probably get it.

Oh, let me see. Yeah, I got it. If you could just real, real quick. Oh, actually, hold on, hold on.

The link can be found, so the Cessatious will be found in the bio. Okay, so yeah, just to confirm, he said the link can be found in the bio.

If you're going to use terms that are widely used and if you're going to make a statement like what he said, it is very fair to the other side and to your audience to clarify, this is what

I mean by this, instead of just making a blanket statement. Because anybody that hears it can take it in one direction that maybe he didn't intend for it to go.

And if he didn't intend for the way that I took it for it to be that way, like I mentioned, you didn't provide context and didn't give any clarity to what you meant by that.

So I hear a blanket statement, and I'm like, well, what am I supposed to do with just this, hypothetically?

So that's all I'm saying. I mean, like one of the most important things for me that I believe we should all do on a more consistent basis is just define our terms.

This is what I mean by this, so that it's abundantly clear from any sermon presentation, et cetera, of what we say and do, that is clear by what we mean by it.

Otherwise, if we don't define our terms, other people will define them. If there are statements like that, feel free to share them with me.

I would have a problem with blanket statements like that. So if we provide those statements, you will be writing an open letter to Bill Johnson and others?

Again, like I said, I don't have to address every single thing that every single pastor or teacher or pastor - So why did you have to address this one?

Because I saw it. Okay, so he saw it. Now, there's a reason I played all that.

I know it was long. I wanted to get time to hear him in his own words, and we wanna get to Andy.

But the reason I did that is because just after the show, someone sent this to me, and I wanted to hear him in his own words.

Remember, anyone that makes a blanket statement that doesn't provide context, he's gonna address it publicly.

This is his own words. He says, cessationism is a cancer within Christianity.

What began as an appropriate reaction to falsified miracles with the Roman Catholic Church has become a many -headed monster that has divorced the people of God from the power of God, power that we are instructed to desire and seek after the

Bible. Now, here's the issue I have with this, folks. This statement is the exact thing that Justin was saying that charismatics make that Zach says he doesn't know the context for, to argue that people that believe gifts cease, that they have a low view of the

Holy Spirit or believe that there's a divorcing of the people of God from the power of God. But when you make a blanket statement that cessationism is a cancer, there was no context for this given.

He is doing the very thing he accused Justin of doing. And Justin didn't actually do it because Justin, we tried to show provided context.

It was funny because his wife, Lindsay, was making a big deal, cessationism, not cessationist, which is funny because if you go back to last week's show, he made the whole issue over one word, the charismatics, where we kept trying to point out that doesn't mean all charismatics.

Justin was really clear, you heard him read it, that it is those hucksters that do this.

And so you end up seeing from this that he knew the context, he ignored the context, he's the one that denied showing the context.

And a day before he came on, he had shared this, this blanket statement.

This actually, this statement, I said to his wife, this undid everything he said on the show.

It undid it because whatever he was trying to argue for just got undone with one post he did the day before, okay?

Now, I have been critical of Lindsay, I said so on the show, because when she first came out of Bethel, I wanted to see her get discipled.

And that was something that I did not see. She claims she has been discipled. Now, it's interesting. She gave me two people that have been discipling her.

Only one, she tagged them, I asked them both to explain that discipleship. One guy said,

I don't know what you mean. He's got no clue. So that's not, when I said, what's the discipleship that you're doing with her and Zach look like and he can't tell me?

She further explained, and I'm gonna put this post up because this becomes interesting, and this is one that Anthony may wanna speak to as well, but she put this up in responding to something

Anthony said, I'm gonna focus on something different than Anthony, but Lindsay had said to Anthony Silvestro, I have no involvement in the

NAR. Now, that's where I'm gonna focus on. Anthony, you may wanna focus on the other part. She's got no involvement in the

NAR, but she says that her pastor is an apostle. And the reason why

I asked that question about if she is involved is because she said that she does,

I asked if she goes to an NAR church and she said she does not, and that was her response.

She has no involvement in the NAR. Now, it's careful wording. No involvement doesn't mean

I don't go to a church with someone who calls himself an apostle. Now, this pastor supposedly, who's an apostle, they say that he's an apostle in the

New Testament church mindset. So he's a church planter. But we use the word church planter when someone uses the term apostle nowadays, they usually mean it in the

New Apostolic Reformation. And so if you're going to a church that has an apostle, I would say you are involved with it.

But if they wanna make that distinction, the question I'm gonna then have, and it wasn't answered is, does this guy hold to the five -fold mandate of the

NAR? Does he practice those things? Now, I said that there's, my issue was with the discipleship.

Anthony, I'm gonna ask you a question. I did reach out to her previous church, the previous pastor that she was at in Texas and spoke to several people.

I've heard from multiple people. She says that she left the church because no one would disciple her. And yet I was told several people who reached out to disciple her and she refused.

One actually said that she left the church because they were pressuring her to get discipled. She moved to Ohio, Anthony.

Soon as I knew, she moved less than an hour from you. Can you explain the phone call that you got from me and what happened, what we tried to stop?

Yeah, well, you and Justin Peters called me together and asked if I think

Julie would be willing to disciple Lindsay, even though, you know, it's about an hour away from us. And I asked her, she had no problem with it.

So, you know, I know that Julie had Lindsay's number. Lindsay had Julie's number. They talked briefly once or twice and Lindsay didn't wanna do any type of discipleship after that and Julie just dropped it.

She's not gonna press into it, so. Yeah. So that's what happened, yeah. We have two cases where we don't see discipleship.

We have two people's names that supposedly discipled her, but they can't describe what that discipleship looks like.

I believe that, you know, and look, anything I'm saying now, she decided to publicly share my text messages with her, private messages,

I don't care, I'm fine. She thought that that, she actually thought it was gonna show that I'm a different man in public versus private.

And I think the reason she probably took it down is because I saw the people commenting and saying, actually, this shows that Andrew is just as stern with your husband and with you online as he is in private.

Like, I don't see the difference. But there is something, and I'm gonna let you address if you wanna address anything, but I have one last thing

I wanna address. Actually, two things. One is this, you know, if people wanna say does, can, you know, is there an easy way for us to see, you know, what

Justin means by this? And this is where I'm gonna let Anthony in on a little bit of a secret here. He's gonna get to see one of my tools.

All right, so this is a tool that you can use to look up. Basically, it's not perfect, but anytime someone says something on YouTube, that it automatically generates subtitles and you can search all the subtitles and you can actually get from those subtitles, you could get the exact, the word.

So I was gonna play through these things, but basically what we have here is different videos, except for that one with the

British guy, Murray Smith. Sorry, Andy, but you know, that got in there because he made the, but what you see here is

I did a search for a low view of the Holy Spirit. And Justin says this over and over and over again.

And what ends up happening is I just did a quick search just to see, and in each one of these, he ended up providing the context.

I wanna make sure we have time to get to Andy, so I'm not gonna get to that. One last thing that I do want to share though is this.

There was a lot that had gone on with, that I found out afterwards with Lindsay, because I said that I believe that she's trying to build a platform.

And I'm gonna tell you why I think she's trying to build a platform, because now she's got a T -shirt company and I guess a cosmetic company, but there was this.

And this was one of several posts. I wanna highlight something here. In the several posts, she said that there was mold in her house and she had to leave.

And she's saying here that she has a GoFundMe and she needed money for all the donations, will go to treatments, cost of appointments, travel expenses, lab work, and legal costs.

She's gonna talk about here, about the pay for extensive medical bills and legal fees.

And people asked about the legal fees. And she's saying she's gonna sue people over these things.

Here's another post where, and this one's very interesting. Furthermore, we got our lab tax back, it's not good.

We cannot give specific details for legality reasons. Okay, even on her fundraiser.

She says, for legality purposes, we won't disclose the name of the company that she's suing.

Why am I spending the time doing that? Because one of the things I also have, and I'm not gonna reveal this tool because, well,

I'm just not going to, but there is a tool that allows me to search through every court case in America.

If there is any court cases, I can find it. And there isn't a single court case that names

Lindsay Davis, Lindsay Davis Knots, Lindsay Knots, and Zach Knots.

Not a single court case. This is over a year ago that they raised $42 ,000 for legal fees.

So folks, why might they want a platform? Well, they raised what the average person makes in a year.

They raised that. Just pleading for money for a legal case that doesn't exist. So with that,

I'm gonna let you guys be the judge. I just needed to clarify the things that they had said. They talked about the fact that the context was missing, the context was there.

He talks about cessationists being a cancer without providing context. I'll ask you, which is worse?

Which is a more divisive statement? Justin quoting creationists, and he's not quoting, sorry, creationists.

I'm getting ready for the next segment. He's charismatics. He's quoting charismatics, and he's not carrying all of them.

He says who he's quoting, the hucksters, those that are abusive, and he's quoting them and using their own words against them.

That's supposedly so divisive, but Zach doesn't think calling a whole group of Christians that they're a cancer, and that they divide the people of God from the word of God.

So Anthony, I don't know if there was anything more you wanted to add. No, I'm gonna leave it at that.

I did not attend the show last week because I didn't want to distract from what you guys were doing at hand.

I have some other thoughts about the whole thing, but I just, I stayed out of it. I'm gonna stay out of it for a little while.

Wise man, wise man. So with that, I think that,

I mean, we're done with that. I don't think that we'll be doing any more to discuss it, but when someone calls someone out publicly, as I said last week, do your homework and make sure you can support your case.

Why am I saying what I'm saying here? I think I can support the case here. I think that, you know,

I can prove that there's no legal cases. There's no case that they have legally that we can see in the courts after a year, and they're claiming that they're using this money for legality.

Well, I just call liar on that until there's some evidence to support it because I don't find any.

But I believe that could be a very simple and believable reason why they may want to be platforming. So let's get into a way better topic.

Actually, before we get into a topic, because I know what you're gonna do. Once you get into this topic, you're going to forget.

You're going to forget about our good friend, Cole. And Cole wants us all to know that he needs a

MyPillow. And so if you would like to help sponsor this show, like Cole who needs a

MyPillow, you can use the promo code SFE. Andy, this is a real, this actually happened.

This was someone backstage one show, and he fell asleep, and we brought him in after the show was over, and he still didn't know that he was thoroughly asleep.

That's how good we are at putting people to sleep. But if we're not good enough, go get yourself a pillow like Cole needs.

Go to MyPillow .com, use promo code SFE to get yourself a good night's sleep.

So now that we got the sponsor is mentioned, Anthony, I'm gonna hand this over to you, and I will enjoy the conversation and just pop in with questions when

I have something valuable to add, which means never. Oh, so why don't you introduce,

I think most of the folks know the guy all the way to the left there. He is the infamous pastor of Beulah Baptist Church, Casey Butner.

He's been on here a number of times. We're getting ready to make him a co -host because we don't see

Justin much. I think we've seen, well, I know we've seen Casey more than Justin all year, but you're still young.

Probably true. You just happen to be at the right place at the right time. So I was down at the resort and, you know.

Well, it's good to evangelize. Yeah. Why don't you introduce? So Dr.

Casey Butner, my pastor here in Florida. We have Steve Hendrickson, who is a very good creation apologist and other general apologist, who just seems to know a lot of people in the apologetics realm and gets to host a lot of people down here, which is how,

I've heard about Professor Andy McIntosh from a lot of people for a lot of years.

You know, Mike Riddle, who's a ministry friend and I do a lot of work with Mike as well, knows Andy well inside.

I've heard a lot about this Brit for a long time without ever meeting him. And because of Steve, we've now been able to meet.

And Captain Black Eagle says, let's just call them people over the pond.

Over the pond and a bunch of spilt tea. As long as the tea's desalinated,

I don't know. As long as the taxes are paid. As long as the taxes are paid, I get it. So Steve, would you like to give a little bit more of a thorough background for Andy and a bio?

Sure. The neat thing about Andy is he's an engineer who's done something in engineering.

He's not just an educator. He has actually developed the patents and stuff for his research into the bombardier beetle.

He's been able to come up with applications for that in real world engineering, that's biomimetics.

And he's been a friend of mine since we met. I had been teaching thermodynamics about four times at the university level, the last time at the

University of Virginia. And Andy has taught for many years at Leeds University.

And so I was very respectful of him and we had a chance to meet around 2012 or so. And I brought him to my church in Charlottesville, Virginia at that time.

And then I moved down here and brought him to my church here a few times. And then I found out about Casey Butner and mentioned that, hey, you'd probably like to see him.

And I came and I saw you and Mike do one of your one day seminars. And I knew Mike because I had brought

Mike to my church when he was in there. And I brought Dr. Joe Martin, if you know that family.

I brought him when I was teaching introduction to engineering and design, I would bring him in and show that as well.

So I've got a lot of teaching experience. Yeah, just when people thought there was only one crazy dentist who's a creationist, they didn't realize there's also

Dr. Joe Martin who's an older crazy creation dentist. Yeah, there's a few of us out there and hopefully we're gonna get a few more converted from the dental realm.

Well, he also, Joe Martin's famous for his amazing creatures that defy evolution. That's right.

It's one of those things where we look at Romans 120 and we just go, man, as an engineer, that's just the perfect explanation.

It's a design argument. Look at the things that are made. And you can tell people, no, you could be talking to God that way.

And he could say you're without excuse for saying there's no evidence for God. Amen to that. And that's a great lead into the show.

So, you know, it's funny. I mean, you guys both are actual engineers. I jokingly call myself a tooth engineer.

But in a lot of ways, right, when we understand physics and vectors and forces, I literally, when

I'm building teeth or I'm designing crowns on a machine to make, because I don't send them to the laboratory,

I make them in office in CAD CAM design software, mill it out in the CNC machine.

And so all the designs mine, everything, I look at everything and understand the forces.

I can just picture the forces, picture the vectors as the teeth are in what we call mastication, as they're chewing.

Teeth don't just come together like chattering teeth. They actually have this teardrop movement as they grind food in between the cusps and in between the cusps of the opposite teeth.

So it's interesting seeing engineering and understanding Romans one is really about engineering.

It is. And it's about God and the design in the universe, design and creation.

And that we're all without excuse because every one of us recognizes he as the designer.

That's right. And one of the things you have to remember about design, it's nothing really more than plan and purpose.

And basically the way I show it to young kids and stuff like that, and even Sunday school classes, you show it in terms of an arrowhead.

How can you tell that an arrowhead is different, for example, from a pebble in a stream? And you can use that and show how it's sharpened to penetrate, how it's got a place for the shaft.

You can just go through the design components of it. And pretty soon everybody's going, oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. Well, it does.

But when you get down to DNA, then it gets exciting. Because those are amazing things that it does.

That's right. So Andy - You know, it's actually kind of funny, Anthony, because you being a dentist, you know, when we're on the streets,

Andy, what happens is I usually will introduce Anthony as a doctor and people go, first thing, the question they ask him is, what kind of doctor are you?

And he says, well, I'm a dentist. They're like, you're not a real doctor. Well, my background is called software engineering.

But, you know, engineers will go, that's not a real engineering. Yes. Yeah.

So Katie and Jesus says, do they ever print teeth? I'm not sure what you mean by that. So you might have to - I mean a 3D printer.

3D printer. Oh, yeah. So if it's 3D printing, we're not there yet. Our CAD -CAM machines take a block of porcelain and mill out the crown based off of what it's told by the software, the

CAD -CAM software and how we design the crown. The materials are strong enough to do that.

We do not have ways yet to actually build a crown out of materials that will be strong enough.

I think it's coming one day, but we're not there yet. So, Andy, if you can give us kind of a brief introduction yourself about some of the work you've done.

I know you've got a lot of specialized things you've done. So if you can just give the audience a little glimpse into that.

Well, first of all, I'm a Christian. I was converted 54 years ago in 1969 as a youngster before I went to college.

And I was brought up in a religious home, but I didn't know the

Lord Jesus Christ. But I thought that, you know, I was there, that I was attending church.

I'd been baptized as a baby. I thought that, you know, I was a converted...

Well, I didn't really know what conversion was, but I just thought that I was Christian. When a young leader at the time asked me in the local

Evangelical, and I didn't know it was Evangelical, but we'd moved to an area in Manchester where the church was much more lively.

I didn't understand what an Evangelical church was, but that's actually what was happening. We were going along to a church of England, which really did believe in the truth.

And this young people's leader asked me, Andy, are you a Christian? And I said, I hope I am. He realized

I wasn't. And he said to me, you need A, to admit that you're a sinner,

B, you need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and C, you need to commit your life to Christ, hand over the keys of your life, repent, basically, and turn from your sin personally to the

Lord Jesus Christ. And I was so taken with what had been said, realizing in a moment what the essentials of being a

Christian is, which is to personally know the Lord Jesus Christ. It wasn't going to church that made me a

Christian. It wasn't trying to mix with other Christians, which would make me a Christian. Just like, you know, you can put a car in a bus garage, it doesn't become a bus.

That sort of point was really, all these things were just coming straight to me just through this one conversation.

It was the first time I'd heard that you needed to personally trust the

Lord Jesus Christ. I hadn't understood it before. I'd been along to a Billy Graham crusade and hadn't grasped it.

Tried to read the Bible for a while, then fizzled out. But now I'd understood what being a

Christian was. I went back to my room in South Manchester, not far from Manchester Airport. That's where we used to live.

Now I live in the Northeast, quite far away from there, but still in the

Manchester area. It was a sort of strange quirk of circumstances. I've come back to the city where I was converted.

Anyway, I went back to my room and I prayed and I sought the

Lord and I admitted I was a sinner. I believed that Jesus had died for me and I committed my life to Christ, A -B -C.

Now look, the reason I'm telling you this is that this is where my real spiritual journey obviously begins and everything begins to come together in my life, which had not come together before that.

I was a youngster in that sense. I was only in my late, well, mid -teens, coming up to 17.

But I now understood the secret to what really was the key to everything, which is the

Lord Jesus Christ. And coming to know him personally, well, the next morning,

I prayed, I went to sleep, woke up in the morning, I felt as though I'd had a bath on the inside, shower on the inside, whatever illustration you want to use.

I wanted to pray, wanted to read my Bible, which before I just said to you, I've been along to a

Billy Graham crusade in Wembley when we lived in London. And basically, even though I have great respect for the memory of Billy Graham, it hadn't actually opened my heart then, but now my heart was open.

And now reading the Bible, instead of being a problem and a difficulty in understanding it,

I really did understand it, the essence of it. And I also wanted to meet with other

Christians. I could distinguish not a religious person, like I'd been, from a person who really knew the

Lord Jesus Christ. And things went up and down in my life. I wasn't always the same as I'd started off.

I mean, I had some doubts, but very wisely, the person who led me to Christ when

I expressed these doubts to him said, look, the very fact that you've got these issues of doubts is an indication that you're concerned that it probably means, obviously you can't be absolutely definite, but he was assuring me that this is quite common and that people who are really believers are the ones who is actually examining themselves.

Well, God graciously drew me further into other fellowships. I went to college, started, this is at Bangor University in North Wales.

And I met my wife there, who's converted from an atheist background. I won't go through her testimony, but it's quite markedly different, of course.

But we courted each other and we eventually got married after being at college.

And I was doing applied maths and I was doing biblical studies naively, thinking that the way to understand the

Bible was to go do this college course in the Bible. Frankly, it didn't help much at all. And it was the

Christian Union which helped the greatest. And the leader of the Christian Union said, you really need to join the dots of your thinking concerning your science, which you're in.

I was doing more on applied maths, sort of the verge of physics and mathematics.

Really, that's where I was headed. And let me just say, this is an important point.

I then began to understand from what this chap said, that I needed to bring my subject of science into the

Bible, into my, not into the Bible, but into my understanding of the Bible.

And he said, had you ever thought that the Bible is correct right from the first book?

And I'd never thought about it, frankly. And I want to just give you my testimony here as to how the science and the

Bible became an issue. It wasn't an issue before. And this is important to say this, that not everybody becomes a

Christian through the creation evolution issue. And we must be very careful about ever saying that to be converted, you've got to agree with creation.

That is not what I'm saying, even though I'm heavily involved in creation ministries there. I can see, going back to how

I became a Christian, I can actually tell the difference. Basically, because you perceive it when you become a

Christian, you know that you have fellowship with somebody. Even though you may not agree on everything, you can see that they love

Christ. So I want to make that plain, even though I regard creation as a very important issue.

And I believe if you don't believe in creation, it does affect your spiritual growth. You cannot say that it's fundamentally a salvation issue.

However, even though it is a very important issue, because creation connects with the gospel.

Anyway, I started reading Henry Morris's Genesis Flood, read books like Wickham and Morris, The Early Earth, and The World That Perished.

And it was the issue of the flood, and being in Bangor in North Wales, I could see lots of evidence of sedimentary layers everywhere, which really impressed me.

And I suddenly realized, wow, the Bible is right. In Genesis 6 -9, which I've begun to read, realized that the flood was a real historical event.

Then, strangely enough, it was the flood which really impressed me first. Then I began to realize, well, creation's got to be true.

Where do you start saying that the Bible really is the authoritative word of God?

I realized you've got to begin with Genesis 1. And that's what really laid a tremendous foundation for my spiritual walk.

Slowly but surely, I began to realize that the whole Bible is the document which we must base our lives on.

And Juliet and I, my wife, once we got married, of course, she actually very much felt the same.

And we based our whole life on what we'd learned at the Bangor University, where David Norbury, the leader of the

Christian Union, he's still alive now and working for the United Beach Christians and other organizations, the

Emanjoko Movement of Wales. He's retired now from all these. But he was a great influence on our lives.

We became involved in the United Beach Christians, came involved with the

English Young Life. You actually have it over here in America as well. But the English Young Life was very, very strongly biblically based.

And it really caused us to put big roots down in the word of God. And may

I just say this? I know I've been a long time, but I do want to say this. We learned through the

Young Life, which was teaching us, this is the British Young Life. I'm not sure it's quite the same in its emphasis as the

American one. But in the British Young Life, it used to be called

National Young Life Campaign, but it's shortened to Young Life. But they emphasize the importance of reading scriptures, that you don't just pick a verse here and pick a verse there.

You start by reading Genesis, and you then begin to read it all the way through.

I've got the King James letter there. We'll pass that bit over. But that's not the authoritative word of God.

But you start with your Genesis and you read it all the way through. And the reading of scripture all the way through had a huge impact on me.

Because suddenly I realized that I've got to treat this book seriously. I've got to connect the dots of all the passages which may refer to a particular subject.

That includes creation. And if creation isn't just in Genesis, creation is referred all the way through.

And indeed the flood is often referred to all the way through. The New Testament, particularly in the words of Christ, the words of the

Apostle Peter, the words of the Apostle Paul, constantly, constantly the refrain, even in the

Old Testament prophets, it's the God who made everything. The God who made the sea, the heavens, and all that's in them is.

Everything is always going back to creation. And I realized this as I began to read the

Bible. I've now, I don't know how often I've read the Bible, but it's of the order of 40, getting on for 50 times.

Professor Andy, you mentioned something. One of our listeners here, Max Peck said, and I just,

I want to see if I get you to dive into this a little bit more because a lot of people don't, are critical of creationists.

But he says, he said he agreed with what he says. He says, I agree. Creation apologetics didn't save me, but I feel

I would have strayed as a baby Christian without it. Exactly. That's exactly right.

Now, because there are people who act as if, like everyone should be involved in creation science, if that, as if, if you just understood that, you'd be saved.

No. You're making it clear. No one believes in creation and he's obviously lost. You know, there's some great foundational truths in the

Bible. And when someone is going through a really tough time, sometimes these foundations will keep them solid.

And Genesis one is one of those. Exactly. And let me just say that having said what

I said, that it's not a salvation issue. I did always say, but it's a very important issue.

It's not a salvation issue, but it's nevertheless a foundational issue is much, forgive,

I'm going to be a bit, put my neck out here. I would say it's much more important than baptism for instance.

I put it much higher up in, it's certainly much more important than your views of the second coming views, you know, we'll differ on that.

Joel Beakey was a well -known preacher of the gospel. Love him to bits, but he's

Peter Baptist. I'm Baptist in my persuasion. You mean you're biblical. Well, I'm not going to go into that.

You're going to ruin my point by even joking about it. But - We're all Baptists here.

Whatever you are, that doesn't matter in as much as believing in creation.

Baptists, being a Baptist perhaps does matter. And you've got to respect that there are others who disagree with you.

You know, there are a number of people whom I respect in the

Peter Baptist community, which I could work alongside in many ways, even in a

Christian outreach. But I'd really struggle working in a

Christian outreach where there was differences on creation. For instance, in United Beach Christians, which

I've worked a lot with in England, although I work now much more in the open air side of the work, which is a sister work called

Christian Answer. We make it a policy that the leadership must believe in creation because it affects you.

You may not agree entirely because some of the leaders will come from a Church of England background.

You may not agree on issues of baptism, but if you don't agree on creation, it immediately affects what you're going to say to the outsider who says, what about the dinosaurs?

You're going to be in a real problem if you're standing on the open air with somebody else and they don't agree on that issue.

It's going to be, it's going to come out in the conversation very, very quickly. Problem of evil.

Yeah, exactly. So do you see what I'm saying? That the creation issue, whilst not being, you mustn't say that it's a salvation issue because Romans 10 and nine doesn't say that you must believe in creation.

It says to believe in your heart and testify with your lips, Jesus Christ risen from the dead. And so it clearly isn't, but nevertheless, the gospel comes back to creation.

And as you said, Casey, the origin of evil and the fact that evil came from the devil, obviously, but it's more than that.

It's what happened with the fall when Adam fell and that there was a literal fall and that there was a real garden of Eden.

Physical death, as well as spiritual death, came as a result of sin.

There was a physical effect of sin. Now, a theistic evolutionist, and there's plenty of them in the so -called evangelical church in England than there is in America, lots of people saying, oh, it wasn't an immediate effect of physical death.

So you're immediately on a completely different, what is the word? Well, different planet, really, but a different perspective concerning the cross of Christ.

If death, physical death, did not come as a result of sin, then you might well ask, why did

Jesus Christ literally die on the cross? That's true. It immediately affects your understanding of the gospel.

The physical part of the world, as well, the thorns. This is highly relevant to the apologetics.

Sorry, you need to come back in. No, this is your show. Well, it's not my show, but either online, like we're doing now, or if you're doing it in the open air, which

Ray Comfort and many others do, then you've got to know exactly what you're going to say concerning what the gospel is and what a person is by nature, that he's headed for death, he's headed for judgment.

Why? Because of sin, and it's not just his sin, it's the sin of Adam, and that's the important point.

As in Christ, sorry, as in Adam all die, so all in Christ shall be made alive.

Well, you know all this, guys, but I mean, this is so fundamental, and I don't think you can really do

Christian apologetics, and even stick my neck out here, because I know there are other apologetic organizations, but they don't take a creation position, and I don't know where they go to when somebody asks them about dinosaurs.

You know, I could name names, but we're on this program, so I'm not going to name names.

We don't mind naming names here. Yes, but there are other apologetic groups, and you're well aware of them. Could I add one thing?

When you're talking about this, the important part also is to define the terms. In other words, we ought to define what empirical evidence actually means, and we ought to define what extrapolations of data may actually mean, where you're doing some assumptions, as opposed to proper science.

Yeah, no, exactly. I've just been talking about the biblical basis, but obviously, and hopefully, we're going to develop the issue of the science, which is what you're now touching on.

Yeah. Well, you know, in what you said, Andy, what's interesting is that William Lane Craig has very recently, again, gone on to write a book.

Well, I wasn't going to mention him, but you've mentioned him. That was the one that I was talking about, which is his book, what's it called?

He talks about how to promote the faith. It's sort of a book on apologetics. Yeah, well, he literally just said we have to -

Talking about - Yeah, he said we have to eradicate young earth creationists because they're damaging the old earth creationists' ability to share the gospel and witness.

Of course, some of us would argue that he's a heretic, even on how he views the gospel and God's foreknowledge, and it's a different, he's a

Molanist. So he's got other problems. There are issues in his - But he literally said, again, very recently on a video, one of my friends is doing a critique of it right now to be published here real soon.

I just talked to him tonight. And yeah, he thinks we should eradicate all young earth creationists.

But then you've got other guys that are main guys. I know a friend of Andrew's, Greg Hopel and others, who are, they don't believe in evolution, but they believe in old earth.

And so it changes how they answer questions. Reasons to believe is typical of that.

John Lennox believes in the universe, and he often links with reasons to believe in heroes.

But the book that I was thinking of was William Lane Craig on God, which of course has some very useful points about how do you show a person that there is a

God? And then most of us would actually often be dealing with that sort of issue as regards, where does your mind come from?

So a lot of, there is an overlap with all the apologetics work, but where I think they really begin to go wrong is, as you've just said, is where you actually put a doubt on the obvious understanding of Genesis One.

Because I've found that the average person on the street in England at least will very quickly be saying, you can't believe in Genesis One.

We know that the dinosaurs are 65 million years old, and there you are telling me that dinosaurs went onto the ark.

Well, what are you going to do with a person like that? What's William Lane Craig going to do with that?

Well, he's going to presumably doubt that there really was a worldwide flood. Which he does.

Yeah, and then what he's gonna do is he's going to undermine the very Bible that he's trying to argue from.

Why should anybody come to faith by listening to William Lane Craig preach or give an apologetic when he himself does not believe what the

Bible clearly says? Right, that's the issue I have with anybody who doesn't take the whole question seriously. Where I'm just a little bit reserved, maybe

I don't quite agree with you here, guys, depending on what you say to this, but I think we have to be very careful not to be discourteous even to the

William Lane Craigs and certainly to others who do speak badly of us, right?

And you're right, William Lane Craig has clearly said quite publicly, you know, he's against, very strongly against young earth creation.

But it behoves us not to use the same sort of words back to others.

Speaking of which. Also, John Lennox has begun to speak against our position in his book,

Seven Days That Divide the World. He's put it in writing and the latest version of his book, Seven Days That Divide the

World, has really begun to garner the young earth creation position. But I know

John Lennox and I don't want to be known as a person who sort of then starts sort of publicly slating people.

You need to be exceedingly careful because we are not to be known as people who use the same language back to others.

We must respect people who we don't agree with, we don't feel that they're doing the right thing, but we must show courtesy to them.

And we must not step over the line. Yeah, just let me finish. We mustn't step over the line by beginning to imply that they are not really believers, which

I hope nobody does, because I think that is not right. Well, and I want to emphasize this because I want people to hear this, because what you're saying is,

I think, missed on both sides, okay? The issue is we need to boldly stand up to defend the word of God.

Yeah, we do. The issue is that some people, the way they go about that is to use the same worldly techniques and arguments that are used.

This is the word of God. These are the words of the creator of the universe. I agree.

And we're defending that. Now, the problem is we have to be balanced because what unfortunately a lot of people do is they'll say, well, we have to be careful in how we speak to others.

And what they give up is the defense of the word of God. And so we can't do either. We have to defend the word, but do it in a way that we remember that we're ambassadors for Christ.

So we can't just defend it any which way. We defend it in a way that represents back to the king that we are an ambassador for.

And so I really want folks to hear what you had said because I think it'd be too easy for people to just skip over that,

Andy. And what I think you just said was profound and people needed to hear that. So, because there is a balance there.

And obviously, I think what I'm really getting at,

Andrew, here, you're absolutely right. We must defend the word of God, but I'm well aware of my own failures.

I'm well aware of even my own mind. Sometimes I might think something,

I think I got it right. And then I go back to the word of God, right? So I'm not saying that I doubt in any way the sixth literal day of creation.

That is the position that I take. But I'm well aware of a scripture which says, he that thinketh, he standeth, take heed lest he fall.

And I, having preached to others, the apostle Paul said that I myself might become a castaway.

We must show our humility before God and this mighty book, this mighty book will search not only the people that I disagree with, but it will search me.

The word of God is sharper than any two -edged sword piercing even to the defining asunder of soul and spirit.

And I haven't quoted, I missed a bit in the middle there, because it talks about joints and marrow. And then it goes on to say, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Therefore, we need to be exceedingly careful in the way we speak.

I am very concerned about the way some of my own brothers and sometimes sisters speak.

We need to have show courtesy. We need to be absolutely sure of our ground, which is what you're saying,

Andrew. We need to always say that the word of God is correct. Genesis one is clear as a bell.

I've written it in my book, Genesis for today. But let us be careful that when we discuss these things, even with those whom we disagree, that we don't come over as arrogant people who later, you know, maybe we're actually tripped up by something else because of our proud spirit.

We need to be careful. I think - The Bible is an errand, we are not, right? Exactly, Andrew, you said it far more succinctly.

I think where you're coming from is definitely expressed in Proverbs 6, 19. Anyone who spreads strife among the brethren is one thing that God definitely hates.

And so I definitely agree with you. We should be able to disagree and talk things through.

Iron sharpens iron. But I have a question for you. Beyond the brethren, in whom we would say, okay, we believe in the essentials for salvation, and you've got some of these other things, maybe eschatology or the beginnings a little squally,

I was wondering if you ever met Christopher Hitchens before. Now, I never had the pleasure of meeting

Christopher Hitchens and I do say the pleasure because he was a great thinker. Whatever you think about, sadly, the things that he did and the life that he lived, you know, and sadly, the cancer that took him.

I can't remember the name of the gentleman who ran the debates who then, the name's gone from me, but there is a book about Christopher Hitchens by the person who ran the debates between Dawkins and Lennox.

What's his name? The chap who ran the debate in Alabama. It's the organization. Anyway, that gentleman, if we can remember his name, he wrote a biography about Christopher Hitchens because he spent a lot of time traveling with Christopher Hitchens over here in America.

This was about a year or two before he died. And I never had the pleasure of meeting

Christopher Hitchens but this gentleman did, and I'll find his name in a moment, but he's written a book about those last years of Christopher Hitchens.

And Christopher was beginning to engage even on the issues of the fact that there might be a

God after all. You know, that's interesting. Peter Hitchens, his brother, was,

I'm not quite, I'm not absolutely sure whether Peter really has, perhaps would agree with us totally on the authority of scripture, but Peter would say that he's become a

Christian and you could correspond with Peter. It's very interesting. Now, I don't know whether Peter ever finally had a word with Christopher before he went.

I don't know, but it's very interesting, those two brothers. Peter is a commentator in some of the

English newspapers. He's a very good journalist. But Christopher, I never had the pleasure of interacting.

I really, speaking of getting to them nearly, there was a moment that I just absolutely love where Ben Stein got to Richard Dawkins.

And I remember when it was said, no, there had to be some extraterrestrial intelligent alien -like being to take the matter and make something of it.

And so Ben Stein was asking questions and kept probing and forced Richard Dawkins to be able to say, well, there had to be some type of intelligent design that organized what was.

And he asked him what it was, and he kind of went to the bigger, bigger God, the bigger, bigger God, the bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger

God. And then he said, could that bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger God be God?

Is that Expelled? Was it? Yes, it was in the film called Expelled, which

Ben Stein is really a comedian, but Ben Stein interviews these guys, including

Dawkins. But you've met Richard Dawkins before. I've not met him. When I had a brief interaction with him, he was in one studio in Dublin, and I was in a studio in Belfast.

I did actually briefly meet him when he was signing his books, but that was many years before.

You know, Andy, so we actually, when we were at London, a bunch of evangelists, we were outside of his house,

Richard Dawkins. And Son, you said earlier, some of the guys wanted to go knock on the door, and wanted to try to share the gospel with him and confront him.

And we ended up not doing it, back to what you said, because basically I asked the question, how would any of us feel if we had 13 atheists knocking on our door?

And all of a sudden, yeah, you know, it really, I mean, now Anthony's going, please, please,

Anthony. I wouldn't mind that. Okay, yes, there are some of us that,

I mean, I do pray for Jehovah's Witnesses to knock on my door. So let me ask you a question.

And I know, you know, we're focusing on apologetics and stuff, but we have an issue where so much of what we believe is based off of Genesis, right?

I mean, if Genesis isn't real, then would we really need a Messiah?

You know, and there's so much, and Anthony tells a story about that as well, you know, when he was writing his book.

So we know that Genesis is important, but for a lot of Christians, I hear them say, well, you know, you do apologetics, you're on the streets evangelizing, but I don't really need to know this stuff.

Why would apologetics, why would understanding the sixth day creation of Genesis be important for the average

Christian, for that Christian that thinks they don't need it? Well, I would say that it would affect their

Christian growth if they don't, because take a young person who's in an average evangelical church, which may be a very strong Bible -believing church, taught all the importance of purity in their courtship and all the things which we count dear, and then he goes or she goes to university, right?

And she hasn't been taught or he hasn't been taught the clarity of the connection between creation and the gospel.

This person wants to do science, goes to a state university. Here's Jerry Coyne, maybe in Chicago, saying that creation is nonsense, evolution is a fact, and he or she has not got any clue how to actually stand when they're now at college.

I've said it's Jerry Coyne, but it could be some much lesser professor who just simply mocks a creationist position, and that happens in our universities today.

Where is that person going to be then in, say, 10 years' time?

If they haven't been well grounded on the issues of creation, they're actually going to be beginning, humanly speaking, to doubt whether they're right because perhaps they haven't done all their homework, they haven't been able to read the creation literature fast enough.

They ask their pastor for help, and the pastor says, well, I don't know what to do. This is in the state college, wherever they are, right?

And they don't really know the pastor well, and before they know where they are, they're into difficulty.

Then somebody else in the class says, well, come with us tonight.

You don't need to worry about all those things. Enjoy yourself. They're on the steady slide downwards, and that happens time and time again.

It's hugely relevant. If you don't get this sorted out in your early years as a

Christian, I'm speaking about the average person becoming a Christian in their teenage years, which is generally when people become

Christians. There is obviously a tale of people who become Christians later, and Steve's one of them here, but the majority of people become

Christians in their young years, and if we're not getting them grounded in the word of God before they go to college, you are going to really hit problems if you haven't dealt with the issue of creation.

Yeah, you know, I appreciate that. I would add to it, Deuteronomy 4 .2, you've got to add to the word, and it's a hermeneutic that, when it's broken from Genesis, then you have the debate on every scheme, not just like as the show started between sensationalism and continuousism and all the isms that kind of come from there, but the rest of your life in interpreting the word of God, if you break the hermeneutic, if it's not literal, grammatical, and historical, then you're gonna struggle all the way through to kind of figure it out.

That's well put, Cassie, yeah. Yeah. Well, look, every major doctrine of the

Bible, as Andrew and I have a big joke when we are teaching at churches and conferences, and I often say, or he will often say, that Anthony can connect any major doctrine of the

Bible to the book of Genesis, but it's true, yeah. No, no, no, no, let's say it's, you take any message and you get back to Genesis, because -

I can do that, too, for the same reason. I agree with the doctrine, but you could be talking about something completely unrelated.

You could be, I'm trying to think, what would be a way, something that could never get to Genesis, and you'd find a way, you know?

Oh, yeah, it's within six degrees, right? That whole temperature thing. So you can always get back to Genesis.

But the point of this is, I've spoken in numerous churches, at numerous conferences, and invariably, almost every one of them,

I have somebody that comes up to me that either has a really sad story about their child who has, you know, quote -unquote, left the faith, or nobody loses their salvation, but people who have, kids who were never saved and walked away because they never understood creation, right?

And once the professor had an ability to say, hey, we've got the answers.

Church didn't have them, but we got them for ya. Boom, gone, right? Students are gone. Similarly, I also run into a lot of adults who

I believe are born -again believers. They believe the Bible to be true, but if you ask them the question, what about Genesis?

There's a question mark back there. And I was one of those guys, for people who know my testimony, you know,

I got saved later in life, about 15 years ago, and I went, the first couple years, believed in the

Bible, reading it, gobbling it up, but I always have question marks about Genesis because of my science background.

And to be honest, when you have questions about Genesis, you will have questions about other parts of the

Bible, right, naturally speaking, because if you can question any part of it, you can question all of it.

And so when God brought me to the Creation Museum for the first time, providentially, and walked through it, and had a chance to talk to Dr.

Jason Lyle, it flipped my worldview upside down, and I knew at that point that I could trust the entire

Bible. This is the same light bulb moment I have seen in numerous people. So yeah, this creation issue is a really, really important issue, and we cannot stress enough that there's a lot of people out there that say they believe the

Bible, that I believe are true -born Christians, but yet the question mark remains, and it affects them.

I just wanna add, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to make the world love us? Is that what some of these apologists like William Wayne Craig and other people like that, are they trying to make the world love us?

Because we didn't expect that. It's pragmatism. That's what it comes down to. It's an unbiblical method to share the gospel, when you're using pragmatism rather than the truth of God's word, and trusting in God's ability to draw by the power of the

Holy Spirit using the word of God, rather than humanistic methods. I mean, you had an entire conference on this.

Yeah, Steve, a quote that I got very well known for, unexpectedly, was when

I said in a conference, people don't water down the gospel because they care for people's souls.

They water down the gospel because they want to get liked, and quite frankly, we have to get over ourselves.

Yeah. It looked like, Andy, you were gonna say something when I put this post up. Someone said,

Ken Ham says, everything in the Bible leads back to Genesis 1 to 11. And you pointed to the screen, so I didn't know if there was something you wanted to say about that.

Yeah, that's a very important point, that everything in the Bible does point back to Genesis 1 to 11, and even the science, which we haven't really covered yet in our thinking tonight, even the science all goes back to Genesis 1 to 11.

One of the things which is very, very important, and I don't know how a person who tries to marry evolution and the scriptures really copes with this, is where does mind come from?

Where does your rationality come from? Everything goes back to the beginning in Genesis.

And if you say that God used evolution to produce people, to produce people, then you are actually basically saying that the seed forms of mind actually were there in the original beast that supposedly

God made and then evolved into man. Whereas it clearly tells us that our minds came because we are made in the image of God, that our rationality is a reflection of the fact that we are made in his image.

We are not just billions of years old molecules which have gradually become people and have suddenly started thinking rational thoughts about the universe of where we're from.

That is just a nonsense. God made us from dust and he made us to be in his image.

What does it mean to be created in his image? Now, I don't quite know where the other apologists that we've been mentioning, where they go to,

William Lane Craig, presumably believes that after over a long period of time, the mind emerged.

Well, we're just going the way of the world. The Bible makes it abundantly plain that we are made in the image of God.

Jesus Christ referred to as in the beginning, God made them male and female.

So we weren't made after a long period of time. We were made in the beginning.

So when you take the scriptures as your authority, as I said earlier, the

New Testament makes it abundantly plain that Jesus Christ was actually underlining the authority of Genesis when he said, if you will not believe

Moses, then you won't believe me. We do need to actually answer with grace, as I was saying earlier, but the

William Lane Craig's of this world, the Hugh Ross's of this world, that it's the

New Testament, which makes it abundantly plain that Genesis 1 to 11 is to be regarded as history.

And the same applies, by the way, to the geology, which comes out of believing in the flood.

You've got to believe in a global flood. If you believe in Luke 17, as in the days of Noah's sociality, when the son of man comes, then that means that you're underlining the authority called through the

Lord Jesus of Genesis 6 to 9. 2 Peter 3 says that the world that then was perished, and then it goes on to talk about this present world being destroyed by fire.

So it's the New Testament, which tells us, I don't know how William Lane Craig gets around this, it's the

New Testament, which shows to us that the Old Testament is to be regarded with deep, deep reverence, that it's not to be regarded as just a story.

And there is no difference, by the way, between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is simply a magnifying glass on the sixth day of creation, and it's emphasizing the creation of human beings.

And, well, I could go on, but we need to move into the science if we're going to be doing, we're going to talk about apologetics.

You might just want to touch on that. You're in control, not me. So we do have a question for you,

Andy, and it's kind of along the lines of what you just brought up. So this is from Cole. How would one argue with someone who says the flood was local and that multiple cultures around the world didn't experience it at the same time?

Well, how do you know that multiple cultures didn't experience it at the same time? That's a big if.

If you've got cultures which are all referring to a boat, I'm just talking about a minimalist view of the flood, and there are a lot of cultures referring to the fact that there was a lot of water, that there was a boat, and that there was one man and his family who were safe, right?

That does strongly suggest that this is referring to the Genesis account of the flood.

To say that it was local cuts right across the

Genesis and the 2 Peter and the Luke 17 account. So the way that I would always answer them is to take them to the scriptures, that the scriptures are certainly not talking about a local flood.

One of the issues which I don't agree with in the reasons to believe group is that they will not accept a global flood that it is taught in scripture.

I don't know why they won't. So he will not accept it. Just real quick. I happened to see it rain the other day and there was a rainbow, and I thought if there was a local flood, there wouldn't be any more rainbows.

Say the point more. You do want to expand on that, Stephen. No, I don't really want to. I just, it's clear to me that the local flood idea is a compromise trying to get around this idea of a young earth.

And so that's the whole point of it. Maybe then I'll expand a bit more because if you believe that then the rainbow promise, which

I thought you're going to go on to in Genesis 9, which says, I will never do this again.

Was he going to say that it was a local flood? What, God has broken his promise thousands of times.

There have been terrible floods. There was one effectively in New Orleans when the hurricane came through.

When was it? 2005. Yeah, Katrina. Hurricane Katrina. And then there was the

Bangladesh has often gone underwater. There was the terrible events of 2004 when there was a earthquake under the water, which destroyed 250 ,000 people in one day on December the 26th, 2004.

That was a huge local flood. But then God has said he will never do it again if you think that it was a local flood in Genesis 6 -9.

But clearly he didn't mean that. He meant a global flood will never happen again. Yep, that's right.

So, okay. You said something about geology before, right? And talking about fossils.

So, can you explain why this is such a big issue? Because fossils can only be explained one of two ways, right?

Fossils are either what the older people wanna say, whether they're secular scientists or older creationists, they would say that fossils take millions of years to form from sediment and dust and whatnot, or fossils would be formed in a worldwide flood.

Which one actually matches up with the science? Well, actually, there is only one way to really understand the fossils, because virtually all of them show indications that they were buried catastrophically.

There are some fossils which occasionally you can get formed actually later, but most of them are due to the flood.

Because you can actually see that, for instance, you can see ferns, which are squashed.

And obviously, like the bunch of flowers that you might've bought for your wife the other day, and then suddenly something has sort of run over them like a car's run over them.

You get this impression of the flowers or the ferns in this case. I can, in my talks,

I often will show the catastrophic nature of the burial is evident in the fossils themselves.

There's fossilized octopuses where you could actually see the suckers on some of the arms, which is still preserved.

You can even see the ink still in the fossil. There have been cases where you can actually take the ink out of the ink sack and still use it as ink.

Well, that's immediately telling you that that fossil must have been buried extremely fast.

And the other thing is that a lot of the fossils are of creatures that we have today and are recognizable as creatures we have today.

Not all, but a good number of them are. Yeah, meaning fossils that they've dated like for fossilized turtles that they say are hundreds of millions of years old, they look the exact same today.

They look like turtles. Yeah. Now that I've got one, I'd have to dig it out to show you, but I know if you get my book,

Wonders of Creation, you'll see that I've written a chapter on fossils at the end.

And I was writing as an amateur. I wasn't claiming to be the one who knows the most about geology, but I was just basically looking at the fossils.

I've got a lot of fossils at home and I've become a fossil. I suppose I've got so old now,

I'm just joking, obviously. But the fossils that I've got, some of them are remarkable in their preservation.

I haven't got this particular fossil, but I was amazed when I discovered that there are fossils which show a small dinosaur with a turtle, right?

So you've got a creature which you're saying has not changed over supposedly millions of years with a creature which you're suggesting is a precursor.

Some people say that dinosaurs are the precursors to birds. Yeah, or chickens. Exactly. But frankly, these fossils where you've got, it's a

Psittacosaurus, which is actually fossilized with a turtle.

And it was found, I believe, in China. And this is telling you the pretty obvious point that both of them were buried catastrophically, that one of them didn't manage to stay with us after the flood or maybe died out after the flood.

And that's probably what happened because there seems to be stories around and even carvings of people seeing these creatures after the flood, but they gradually died out, right?

Some people think that they probably died out in the Middle Ages, the dinosaurs, right? So, but the point is they are now extinct.

We accept that, okay? But turtles are not extinct. So you've got creatures which are extinct now buried with creatures which we still have today.

All it's saying to me is that some creatures were buried and we don't have them anymore, but some other creatures were buried and we do have them.

So there is no evolution there. It's just that some of them died out and others didn't. I mean, it really is very striking when you actually look at the fossils themselves.

They're not telling you millions of years. Yeah, this is a very interesting one. Do you want to tell us about it?

Well, sure. Show it on the screen. Yeah, it's not, Brian would do that. No. Unless you put it in front of the camera.

You can Google it anyway. It's just a fossil ichthyosaur giving birth.

Now that's a pretty big animal giving birth. So you know it's a snapshot in time. It has to be.

How was it buried? Well, it must've been a whole bunch of mud and stuff to bury it. What would happen during a global flood?

Well, that would happen during a global flood. So Ken Ham says billions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.

What do you find? You find exactly that. Yeah, and exquisite detail, right?

It's not like these animals had a chance to die, break down a little bit, right? The skin starts to slough off.

No, these things are exquisitely preserved. You got it on the screen. Oh, so somebody did that for us, it looks like.

You were able to do that? No. No, I think that's Andrew. So it must be Andrew doing it. Okay. Andrew's still backstage doing production.

Well done, mate. I was gonna say, we didn't do it here. Thank you. We owe you some tea.

Yeah, tea solidated with the taxes. You know, with your accent,

Andy, I think that our request of Google to replace Siri with your accent, because I'd love to ask, hey

Siri, you know, the question, your voice come up, but speaking of - But if we have to keep hearing tea jokes,

I don't know about that. Desalination? Yeah. You know,

I can do that with the AI. I can give you a British accent, and I can even take

Andy's voice if he wants, and we can have him say all kinds of things. Oh, that would be great.

Can we teach him real English? Okay, let me just say that, you know,

I'll save Andy from having to say what Paul Taylor says to me. England is where you learned your language.

That's where you got it from. You know, it continues to morph. It comes across the pond to the mountains, and you got

Appalachian English, and then it goes a little bit south, and you got Spanglish, and then a little bit farther.

It just keeps on morphing. You just completely destroyed the

English language. Let's talk about the Melissa. Maybe you should talk about the bombardier beetle.

Come on, let's move about this. I know, I know. You've been chomping at the bit. Okay, so let's change subjects now.

But before we get to the beetle, we do need to give some background to this, because, you know, you have an engineering background.

And before we get to the engineering background, I want listeners to know, because I was going to ask these questions in a different order, but since you brought up your testimony first, what age did you get saved, and then what age were you convinced of a biblical creation?

Yeah, it was later for me. I became a Christian just before I was 17, a few months before I was 17, and then went up to university, began to realize that I needed to read the

Bible systematically. That was actually later, but I started thinking about creation when

I was in university. So I'd say that I became convinced on a young earth creation position, probably by the time

I was 21. Okay, so within a few years. Within a few years, maybe 20, you know, early 20s anyway.

And was it a mix of Bible plus science, or was it? It was a mixture.

As I indicated to you earlier, I realized that the geology, even as an amateur,

I could see the layers in the mountains of Wales.

You could see all the strata, we call them, you know, all at an angle, but all parallel to each other, strongly spoke of, you know, being deposited as Wickham and Morris suggested in a worldwide flood.

And I could see that everything's fitted with what they were saying. And the more

I thought about the science, the more I read the scriptures, I thought, we've just got to take the

Bible in a straightforward way. Yeah, amen. So at some point, your interest went towards the applied mathematics and engineering science.

I'd always been interested in mathematics. Way back to my, you know, early teens,

I was beginning to gravitate very strongly to maths, physics, not so much chemistry.

I began to learn chemistry years later, actually, when I started doing combustion.

And I regretted not having done chemistry to a higher level, but I've picked it up as I've gone along.

So I was really more maths and physics. Okay. That's what I really loved. So at what point did you start to understand, because as we get into the bomb of your beetle, at what point did you understand the design arguments in the

Bible and the engineering side of things? I think it was just basically there from as soon as I began to understand creation was true.

And that, and I'd always found a great interest in flight and engineering, aerodynamic engineering.

I moved very quickly from my maths degree into aviation. I spent time in the

Royal Aircraft Establishment. And then I did my PhD after a bit of time teaching at a college of higher education.

I then went into doing a PhD. I didn't immediately do my PhD when I was finished my undergraduate.

I spent some time in industry, spent some time doing a bit of teaching.

Then I did my PhD. And then I was really into design and showing the importance of combustion in engines and stability of engines, which my work had some relevance to.

So I was really into aviation, understanding the way aircraft worked.

Then I began to think about birds and the amazing aerodynamics of birds.

And I began to write a book in 1997, it finally came out.

But that was all, that began its life with an article on flight to begin with.

And the publisher said, well, I like this article on flight, but would you consider writing a book on creation?

And that's what launched my creation ministry really. In about 1995, 1996,

I was writing that book and it came out in 1997. So that's a brief history as to how my journey got going on creation.

Okay, so how does that tie in now to your research with the bombardier beetle? Because you have some expertise there.

Yeah, well, that began because by this time I was really strongly believing in creation and I'd studied combustion and burning and mathematics of burning and the physics of it.

And basically I was very strongly interested in acoustics and fluid mechanics.

So all these disciplines to do with aerodynamics, aeronautics, as well as combustion, it's quite a complicated area.

It's all to do with computational fluid dynamics, but with burning as well.

So you've got reactions going on. It's complicated stuff, but it's very interesting.

Then I picked up this article by Tom Eisner from Cornell University in the proceedings of the

Natural Academy of Sciences. And he was talking about burning of a blast in a tiny little beetle called the bombardier beetle.

I'd heard about this bombardier beetle. Indeed, I'd read some of the articles by Duong -Gish on the bombardier beetle,

Duong -Gish has died some years ago, but he spoke a lot on creation. And I thought, yeah,

I've heard about this beetle. I must dig into this a bit more. So I read this article and it was called the spray aiming and the photography of the bombardier beetle.

So there's lots of pictures of the beetle blasting. I can show you a picture or two of it. Yeah, I've got it here.

And I'll just pull it up if I may. I don't know whether this will work. How do you get, pull it up?

Oh, here we are. Yeah, there we go. So if I play this, I don't know whether I'm going to be able to do this properly, but I think it should be here.

It should work. Should work, yeah, I'm just pulling it up. Hmm, I can't seem to find it on my,

I can see it, it's on your screen, but I can't find where I actually play the thing.

Yeah, I've got it here. I think it's going to your right, I think. Yeah, I've got it, yeah, I've got it here. Here we are, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, here.

So I could just play a little clip, but I was very interested in this beetle because it has a spray system and it heats what is mainly water and it produces steam and it pushes this out in a very, very amazing system which enables the beetle to actually, with pinpoint accuracy, spray it at the attacker.

So it's got a sensory mechanism, so it knows where the attack is coming from. It's got this special nozzle which sprays it in any direction it wishes and it can go some distance.

So the spray, if I just show you this picture, which will then just give you an idea as to what it looks like.

Here's the picture. This shows the bombardier beetle with its spray actually going towards, as you can see, a finger, right?

So that's pretty, pretty accurate. It knows where the attack is coming from and I'm going to jump some slides here so I won't show you everything here.

I'll show you a video. This is what it actually sounds like. So I'll play this.

Few creatures will risk annoying a bombardier beetle. It mixes a cocktail of deadly chemicals in a special chamber.

They react and explode at the boiling point from its rear end in an awesome chemical weapon.

That's from a film called Alien Empire, which the BBC produced. And that's one of the best films that they produced on the bombardier beetle.

And Tom Eisner, he's died now, but he was a brilliant biologist. And let me just play you some other clips of him.

Here's another one. One of the really amazing things about this animal is its ability to spray in a very beautifully aimed fashion.

And that shows up very nicely when you put the animal on indicator paper. And what

I'm going to do now is I'm going to pinch very lightly one leg after the other, just as if I were an ant biting these legs.

I'm going to start with the right hind leg. They're not seeing it. They're hearing it, that's it. They're hearing it, but not seeing it.

Right front leg. Oh, this is not good. We need to stop.

You're not seeing it. Andrew, it's not working. So you're hearing it, but you're not seeing it.

We can see that - Yeah, for some reason it's not playing. Yeah, so I'll stop doing that because that's not going to be of any advantage to people.

But I'll just briefly say that I looked at this with Tom Eisner and we realized that there was a valve system and it was the valve system that we copied.

And as a result of this, we were able to patent a novel spray system which would use the same physics, not the chemistry.

We didn't copy the chemistry. But the same physics of an inlet valve which is pinched closed and then outlet valve which is actually opened under pressure.

And that has led, as I said, to a patent on this for use in different applications.

It could be used in a spray system for engines where you're wanting to make an additive to actually, to make a diesel engine to not produce nasties, lots of soot and everything.

If you put in an AdBlue, it's called AdBlue, if you put it into the engine, then it stops these noxious chemicals developing in the engine.

So we've used that as a spray system to spray additives into a diesel engine.

Then it can be used for pharmaceuticals. It could be used for a fire extinguisher or a fire sprinkler system.

That's what we're thinking of developing it for with Liberty University in Virginia.

So that's a brief rundown as to what we've done. Sorry, I'm so long. I know, but that's great.

And so this is what your patent is in, right? Yeah, the patent. Somebody once said, one of our patent attorneys, he said, maybe we should patent the beetle.

I said, you can't patent the beetle. The one who may have the patent on that is the one who made it, which of course is

God himself. So that was interesting. But this is a classic example of what we call biomimetics, where you copy nature with a view to using it in engineering.

But actually, it's also, it raises issues, which of course the biomimetic community, which is mainly secular, never discusses.

But frankly, it immediately raises the issue. Well, if I'm copying this with a view to enhancing a human design of some spray system, well, doesn't this mean that this creature is also designed?

You know, you're gonna say that this evolved by accident and sort of, it's on a brilliant spray system, which actually depends on a whole host of things to get it right.

You've got to have a catalyst. I haven't gone into the chemistry of this beetle. We are actually beginning to work on the chemistry of the beetle.

There is a catalytic chemistry, which is very, very complicated. I won't go into the depths of it now.

You've got a spray turret, which is coming out of the backside of the beetle, can even go over to the front, point to the front if the attack's coming from the front as well as from behind.

You've got a sensory system. It's not its eyes, which senses the attack. There is some other sensory system, which says the attack's coming from over there.

I'll blast in that direction. So there's all these things, which have got to be right for the beetle to be able to survive.

Wow. I just want to say some of the things you think about from an engineering standpoint are what are the applications?

Where can we use this? And so Andy and I had discussed some research that was hopefully going to be done at Liberty University with their folks.

And the idea might be that you could have a sprinkler system that's directed. In other words, it happens to be in a garbage can by a desk or something like that.

Yeah, it's just spraying water. Yeah, it goes off and blasts real quick, senses it and blasts it.

Now that's kind of the type of thing you're seeing here. It's able to pinpoint a location where to blast.

That's very useful if you're doing the engineering on that. You have to figure out the control system. You have to figure out the way to aim it and the things like that.

But certainly within the realm of our own ability to design those systems.

So those are some of the wonderful things, but that's why I think you need to talk about why you got an award in 2010.

Yeah, I did say I got an award. And we were - Uncoveted. Before you switch topics, someone put this up,

Max put this up. Biometrics sounds much nicer than plagiarism. Yeah, I like that,

I like that. Biometrics. Let me just show you the award that's -

So before you talk about the reward, I want to ask this question too, because this also adds to it.

So Max wrote, do you think there might've been a similar reaction on a larger scale with some extinct animals that inspired so many fire -breathing dragon legends?

So do you think there's a connection there possibly? I don't think there'll be the same system as the

Bombardier Beetle. I don't see evidence of that. But I do see a little bit of evidence.

I wouldn't say a great piece of evidence, but clearly somehow people got the idea that dragons breathe fire.

That possibly could have come from a real dinosaur which was breathing fire.

Yeah, well, it says it in Job, right? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, the Book of Job, it does seem to be a dinosaur, and I would agree.

That is breathing fire too. Job 40. Tale like a cedar tree. 40, 40 maybe?

Job 40 talks about the, how's it?

Leviathan? No, no, Leviathan is Job 41. But Job 40, it's

Behemoth, and it talks about a tale like a cedar tree and talks about the scales.

You can't even get a spear in between. Clearly, this is very much like a dinosaur.

It is describing that. I think it's Job 41 which says of Leviathan that it breathes fire.

Now, if that's the case, and there really was one big creature like a dinosaur which was breathing fire, it could be, we already know that cows, for instance, exhale methane.

You could actually light their methane with a match. You know, you could try it out. But I'm not saying that it's necessarily the same as what cows are doing, but we know that methane is in the gas which comes out of cows.

So it sounds amusing. But if you've got plant -eating dinosaurs, it's quite conceivable that there was a gas like methane coming out of them.

And let me just say this, that one of the dinosaurs, which is called the

Pachycephalosaurus, which has a very odd -shaped head, and it even has something which is sticking out behind it.

Some people have suggested that that might have been a chamber where this gas was actually held and could have been coming out as a fire -breathing dragon.

Frankly, we just do not know. And the fact that I'm saying that it might be doesn't mean that it did.

We just do not know. We just have to say, we don't know enough to be able to actually prove it.

There is this reference in Job 41 which seems to, you need to read it.

Yeah, that's what I was gonna read here. So in Job 41, and this is regarding Leviathan, starting in verse 18, it sneezes flash -forth light, and its eyes are like the eyes of the morning.

Out of its mouth go burning torches. Sparks of fire leap forth. Out of its nostrils smoke goes forth as from a boiling pot and burning reeds.

Its breath kindles coals, and a flame goes forth from its mouth. So that's where it is in Job 41.

So, but what's interesting is, in the bombardier beetle, there's different sections of the chemicals that it holds separately, and that in the design of the bombardier beetle, it's able to hold these caustic chemicals separately, put them together at the right time in a specialized chamber, that now we'll be able to shoot it out as -

Oh, it's a very complicated system. You're not gonna get that by accident. By accident, that's right. And so, is it conceivable that there could be a fire -breathing dragon that could do the same thing?

Have a pouch maybe for the methane and some other thing that would ignite it and be able to spit it out? What I was really getting at in saying that it was a different system is that I don't think there's evidence for a valve system where you've got an inlet valve being pinched and an exhaust valve being opened.

There's not, I don't see evidence of a pressure relief valve in the skeleton, or of course, but we don't have all the fleshly parts of the inner part of the dinosaur.

So maybe they did have it, but I'd just say we don't know enough.

We don't know, yeah. And I think it's far, we're in danger of too much speculation here.

Yeah, no, I get it. We've just got to go on that which we know and just leave the rest. We cannot be sure.

So go with what the Bible says. The Bible certainly talks about a fire -breathing leviathan.

So let's just say, from what we can see, that there may be evidence in some dinosaurs which is consistent with that.

Yeah, and to be fair, of all the dinosaurs, of all the fossils we have, we don't really have that many, right?

Compared to - No, we don't. I mean, people think we have tons of dinosaur fossils because every museum has them, but almost all of them are casts.

So there's a lot more buried out there. So maybe we'll find that fire -breathing dragon here sometime in the near future.

Be wonderful if we do. Yeah. Okay, so having said all that - Well, let's reward this award.

Yeah, that's what I want to hear now, right? Oh yeah, that was 2010, which is some while ago now, it's 13 years ago.

But I had this trouble with Dawkins who was trying to call me out and saying, the

University of Leeds should dismiss this guy, because he believes in a young earth and how wrong he is and all the rest of it.

But actually, I thought it was rather amusing that we had the last word was really from the

Times Higher Educational Supplement, which is an organization in England.

They ran each year awards for outstanding contribution to innovation and technology.

And they were so taken with the work on the Bombardier Beetle that they gave us the award.

So I think that was a rather nice ending to my interactions with Dawkins, who was calling us names and saying that we were, he said on one occasion, if McIntosh and my colleague,

Stuart Burgess, if we were right, then the whole of the scientific establishment has fallen.

That was what he said. And he was saying this in about 2006, 2007.

But when it comes to 2010, I get this award. Did they say that about Noah, by any chance?

In other words, yeah. In other words, the Bible, of course, is full of examples where the majority are wrong.

And although I hold my position, not with saying, look,

I'm right. I'm just simply saying that the Bible shows every evidence of being right when you get the science right.

And that these ideas that people are saying that we've evolved, they don't have scientific validation.

That's what, of course, we're saying. We're saying that the radiometric dating is based on huge assumptions, which actually can be questioned every step of the way.

And that the design in these creatures, including the Bombardier Beetle, is actually indicating that the science is showing design, not evolution.

So I'm quite happy for people to say that the whole of the scientific establishment has fallen, because it is actually based on a lie when people say that we've evolved.

But we're not saying that experimental physics has fallen. We're not saying that experimental engineering has fallen.

In fact, some of the best engineering has been done by my colleague, Stuart Burgess, who has designed satellites.

He has done a lot of design work in bicycles and won the Olympics against the

Americans, by the way, and got the British team always beating the

Americans. So, I mean, he's doing - 1776. And yeah, that's right, the reverse of all the failures of 1776, when he couldn't keep the colonies.

So I'm a British genius. So what I'm saying is that the engineering and the experimental work of the science has not fallen.

But what has fallen is the Darwinian interpretation of the evidence shown to be false.

Yeah, that's right. So did you want to talk any more about the Bombardier Beetle and how it works?

Not just at the moment. I think we've said enough about the Beetle, but it's just an illustration of science.

And I think there are some things which really do show that there is design in nature.

Yeah, absolutely. So obviously, one of the things that Dawkins, you brought up Dawkins a moment ago, and others do this, they act like there's this dichotomy, you can only believe in the

Bible or science. What would you say about that? Sorry, say that question again.

Yeah, so there's people like Dawkins and others who say you either believe in the Bible or you believe in science.

Yes. What's wrong with that? It's the false dichotomy. Because they're saying that science is neutral and that science is always right.

Actually, science is not neutral. And science, when it's done from a secular basis, can often be wrong.

Not always, because sometimes you've got people who don't agree with us at all. Build great big machines, which are very good and excellent because they're actually using principles which are well -founded.

But when you got secular science making ridiculous statements that we know the first few microseconds of the universe, where we don't even understand our nearest star, the sun, yet, okay?

We have every reason to say that that type of science, which isn't science, it's not really based on proper experimental -based science, that that which is science so -called is obviously against the

Bible. The Bible, though, it supports good, solid, evidence -based science.

And that which is clearly evidence -based science never conflicts with the

Bible. Yeah, that's right. And so the reality is we can believe in the Bible and do good science.

They are not mutually exclusive. They are not mutually exclusive. The way atheists often try to say to us.

So I know you're a fan of thermodynamics work. Yeah.

So would you like to talk about the first and second laws and how they relate to the Bible? Yes, I could do.

Can I just show you something else, though, just before we do that? Absolutely. Yeah, and that's this, I've got it here.

If I could just pull it up. So I think we have to, is that the same presentation that you?

No, no, I wanted to show something else. So then what we have to do is we have to select. No, no, you better carry on with what you, you go on to your point.

Yeah, no, so I just wanted to ask about laws of thermodynamics. But I guess in the meantime, while you're pulling it up,

Pastor Casey, there is a question that you're gonna be able to answer here. It was actually asked really early by Jason Cave.

I hope he's still on. And I'm gonna ask you this rather than Andrew because you're studying this right now and you're preaching on this right now.

So biblically, does a person have to be married to be a deacon?

My church has asked me to be one, but I'm not married. Thanks in advance. I know you have the answer and you have the right answer.

So, you know, that's a great question. It's also been asked of pastors, do they have to be married as well?

And the answer is no, you don't see that in church. Yeah, and so when it says husband and one wife, what is that referencing?

Well, one wife at a time, it's defecating polygamy. The culture there is coming out of that.

And obviously that would be speaking to faithfulness as well for us. Yeah. Yes. This is where I was gonna come in and maybe disagree with Pastor Casey a little bit because I don't think it's addressing the polygamy as much as what he just said.

The one woman man that deals with the devotion to the wife that you're married to.

And so the reason I make that distinction is because, well,

I think that's what the text says, but it does answer a question of, can you have someone who is divorced or, because this is the thing, if you say it's one woman for life, you have a widower who remarries.

There's nothing wrong with a widower remarrying. And so if you say one woman for life, a widower who remarries can't be a pastor or deacon.

Yeah. But a one woman man, I mean, in a broad sense would be somebody who has a mindset, right, of a very one woman man, that they're not somebody who wants, whether it's multiple wives or they're constantly on the look or -

They don't have a wandering eye. Wandering eye would be the best way to say it, right. If you look at all of the characteristics, and Pastor Casey, I know you're preaching through this right now, but what you see in all the characteristics is every one of those characteristics is about character.

And so there's two that people come up with that they try to make it not about character, but something that you do or is done.

Those two are this one where they say divorce and remarriage, and they will, so that's really where they're addressing when they say that, you know, now

I was single and a deacon. I wasn't married yet, but a deacon. There's nothing wrong with that.

The other one is where it says that your children must be believing. Some will say that a child must be a

Christian. Well, if that's the case, then no one should be a pastor until their children are grown and out of their house. Right?

And probably dead so they never renounce them. Yeah, exactly. So, no, I think that what you see in all those characteristics is it's speaking of character issues.

It's speaking of the character. And I'll even preface it even more. I don't know if Pastor Casey said this since he already started preaching it, but I would argue that when you look at those qualifications, there's only one qualification for a pastor or a deacon, only one, above reproach.

Everything else that follows is describing how he is above reproach.

Yeah. Just like, you know, the fruit of the spirit, there's one fruit of the spirit, love. That's why it's fruit, not fruits.

It's the fruit of the spirit, love, and then the rest of them describe it. Okay, so -

Speculation. Let's not go into a simple topic like thermodynamics. Let's - Yeah, let's get back to that.

It's easy to understand. If every pastor or deacon had a wife like mine, it would be simply faithful because my wife has made a promise to me that if I'm ever unfaithful, she'll dismember me and mail me all over the world in my very family.

You had that threat too? Wow. Wow. They must be talking or something. Like -minded wife.

Yeah. So, Diotaro says everything is better with a British or Scottish accent.

Thought you'd like to hear that one. What does she have against Australian? I have no idea.

Well, they're obviously the cast offs of the British, so. So riddle me this,

Batman. How come all these others, Scottish, Irish, Australian, they all seem to retain that British accent and Americans explain that?

Like, okay. I would say we evolved better, but I don't know. Micro, just not macro.

We should sue anyone wearing socks with sandals. I think that's aimed at British people. I'm not positive, but somebody made that comment.

Here's a serious question. What would you do if your pastor thinks Tim Keller is great? Leave your church.

I mean, first, confront your pastor lovingly, kindly, on the side to talk about it.

Why do you think Pastor Tim Keller is great? Let them know about some of the major issues about Tim Keller, his pro -abortion stance, among other things.

Well, I mean, okay, for this context, let's talk about his stance on creation. He is not a theistic evolutionist.

He is an evolutionist. He is full blown. So I will give as a resource, go back a couple episodes on Apologetics Live.

We had John Harris on talking about Tim Keller and his views. We just touched the surface, but on his podcast,

Conversations That Matter, he's done a whole series. He has. It's on Biologos, Andrew.

Yeah. Anybody who has any doubts, it's there in writing. There are six talks that he's done where he guns, he literally guns at the young earth creation position.

Yeah. So even though I've told you we must be gracious, and I'm not doubting, by the way, his faith in Christ, he's written a lovely book called

King's Cross, which I really did enjoy. And his book on idolatry was good. But when it comes to creation, it's all over the place.

He's gunning at the young earth creationist movement. And I'm extremely sad that a person of such standing who did, in the past, a very good work in New York should then undermine the preaching of Genesis.

I'm very, very sad about it. Well, I would say when we look into his history, he's been a socialist for a very long time.

Very long time, that's right. A kind of closet socialist, but he's been one. I didn't know that. Yeah. And so I think a lot of these other things really come out of his political views.

That's interesting. That's right. Well, and John Harris is the one that exposed the fact that he and Mark Dever have both been registered

Democrats for a long time. There's a conference I spoke with Israel Wayne and John Harris at a year ago in Idaho, where he exposed that.

I don't know if he even talked about it on the show or not. Of course, yeah, we brought that up. And that's why

I said, if you go to his podcast, Conversations That Matter, John Harris has done,

I think, four or five, maybe, I think he's got a sixth one coming out on dealing with Tim Keller. So I'd recommend that to you.

Yeah, absolutely. So did you have more that you wanted to talk about with Thermodynamics? Just briefly,

I'll just show you, can I show you my screen? I did try. Yeah, I got it up right now. Yeah, okay. Just that quote by Dawkins is very interesting.

Let me just, oh, I can't, oh, dear. I can't see to get to move it. I'm trying to show the slide.

Can you see it now? Yeah, you can. No, you haven't got the slide.

You can keep going with Richard Dawkins' quote from 2006. Yeah. Yeah. I'm showing it here, but it's not showing it there.

Oh, well, it doesn't matter. I'll just read it to you. This is what Richard Dawkins said against us.

Maybe Burgess and McIntosh are right, and all the rest of us biologists, geologists, archaeologists, historians, chemists, physicists, cosmologists, and yes, thermodynamicists and respectful theologians.

I love that bit. What do you define as respectful theologians? Anyway, the vast majority of Nobel Prize winners, fellows of the

Royal Society and of the national academies of the world, that all these people are wrong, not just slightly wrong, but catastrophically, appallingly, devastatingly wrong.

It is possible. If Burgess, that's Stuart Burgess, my colleague who speaks on creation, if Burgess and McIntosh are right, the scientific establishment has fallen.

It's just utterly magnificent. That really, that quote shows really what they recognize is the risk of agreeing with creationists.

Exactly, that's really what it's saying. He's showing that actually he's very frightened of young earth creationists.

In another place, he actually says, you needn't bother about theistic evolutionists.

You needn't bother about old earth creationists, the people you want to bother about. And he says this,

I think it was in an article in the Guardian. This was, I think, in the

Guardian as well, which is a well -known, it's not a very friendly newspaper to us.

And it shows that he is very concerned that we might actually be right in one sense, or that we have joined the dots of our thinking.

We've got, you know, we are not just a force, which has not got consistency.

He can see that we are entirely consistent. And that's what I think is really behind his quote.

That consistency aspect, you know, in the uniformitarian principle, and everything kind of decays at the same rate and all that.

What would Richard Dawkins have to say about that? I mean, I read the entire book, The God Delusion, and there was just no substance there to even refute.

It was a bunch of badgering, pretty much. But what would Richard Dawkins or someone say in regards to the uniformitarian principle?

Well, they would say that that's the only game in town, that, you know, that there's always been this law of evolution.

This is the only way to understand origins, that there's no other possibility. There isn't a

God. There isn't somebody who's actually started things off. So that's Dawkins' position.

Thank you, yeah. So, yeah, thank you for that. I am actually running out of time.

Yeah, I saw your computer was just about to die. Yeah, I should have brought it in.

Yeah, I just plugged in my cable. I took mine out and stuck it in his. Thank you very much. But what

I just would like to... Actually, it needs to... Oh, okay, right.

Yeah, okay. What I'd just like to do is just to show you another bit to do with thermodynamics, if I may.

And I've got it here that we've been talking about the bombardier beetle, but what perhaps is often said by people is that thermodynamics really shows that evolution cannot be sustained or cannot be true.

Now, in order to understand this, let me just say, thank you, yeah, I need to...

You're going to go to present there. Yeah, I've got to go to present. Thank you, yeah.

I'm not so familiar with this system. Share screen here again, yeah. And I've got to go to the right one, windows.

Yes, there you go. Okay, done it. And I will pull it up here for you. All right, I'm just going to... Now, this is a complicated slide because actually

I'm seeking to show to people who think that this is a simple argument that you need to be extremely careful if you're going to engage those who believe in evolution.

If you're going to use the thermodynamics argument, it's not simple.

And I would actually say it's not there as a simple argument for you to pick up.

You've actually got to know what you're doing if you're going to mention thermodynamics because immediately the people who know their stuff will say to you, well, the second law of thermodynamics is only to do with an isolated system.

That is, if you've got an isolated system, then the amount of entropy, which is the amount of energy, which is not actually doing work, gradually increases.

And in fact, in the end, you'll have a heat death of the universe. So they're saying, but we don't live in an isolated system.

Our world has plenty of energy coming into it from outside. And you could therefore have entropy going up elsewhere as it goes down here, where entropy, remember, is the amount of energy lost per degree.

It's actually energy per degree. Well, how do you answer that? Well, the answer is that actually machines, and if you define a machine as a machine which will actually raise the free energy.

So I'll go back to that slide. The amount of energy, which is directed energy, going like energy on a solar cell, right?

If you've got a solar cell on your roof here in Florida, then that energy will very quickly be converted into electricity, which is very useful, and you can actually use it to do things.

Well, unless you've got the solar cell there, a lot of energy will do nothing. You're just heating the roof.

You're not doing anything unless you put a solar cell there. So the real issue is that directed energy is needed in order to build the machinery of life.

You've got to have something inside your system, which is essentially a machine for converting random energy from the sun or random energy that you're saying is coming in to actually do something useful.

So you really need to anticipate what somebody might say if you raise this issue of the laws of thermodynamics.

But what you can say, and which is reasonably simple, is this. Let me just show you what, actually,

I think we should have in our armory when we are speaking to a scientist.

There are three main laws of thermodynamics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, right?

Which means that there's conservation of energy, right? The second law can be summarized that energy in the universe, where you say you've got everything, so it must be true of the universe because you're saying there's nothing outside once you've got that type of system.

Then the second law applies. Energy is gradually getting used up, and the net useful energy in the overall system is winding down, okay?

And then the third law says all systems will eventually approach zero degrees Kelvin, but they will never quite get there, right?

That's the third law. Now, what you can say in a sort of useful little summary is this, and it's quite clever, is that the first law, which says that energy is neither created nor destroyed, is basically saying you can't win.

You can only break even, right? You cannot actually get something for nothing, right?

You can never really get anywhere with the energy.

You're either going to have it converted, if you wish, into mass, which is one way, right, or else.

You're always gonna have energy. You cannot just suddenly have more energy than what you had before.

The second law, just in a sort of quick little summary, is saying you can't win.

You can only break even. It's the first one, but in reality, you cannot even break even, right?

The second law is saying you're actually losing as you go along. You're never actually gaining, right?

And the third law says you can only break even at zero degrees

K, but you never get there. So you actually are losing all the times.

But you must remember that only applies to the complete system.

So you need to be extremely careful about talking about the second law. However, I will say this, that even in open systems, right, where you've got energy coming in, that energy coming in is going to do nothing unless you've got a machine which can convert it into what we call directed energy, energy which is useful for doing work.

So I don't know whether that helps some of your listeners, your viewers, who perhaps have been tempted to use the laws of thermodynamics.

Carry on. Since I've taught this several times as well, I can give a good illustration. And one of the ones

I like to use is, for example, an automobile. And if you have an automobile and you pour the gasoline on the automobile, it'll break down really quick.

If, however, you stored the automobile inside a building, you could preserve it for a long time, maybe.

You know, you put it in plastic or something. But when you're pouring gasoline on it, it'll break down quicker.

But if you pour it into an engine, which has a harnessing mechanism for that, then it's able to do useful work.

It's able to actually do what's necessary. Otherwise, that fuel, that mass that you're putting into it, it's not helping it at all.

You have to have something to harness that fuel to make it useful for work.

Yeah. So let me ask this. What kind of Bible verses are there that shows the laws of thermodynamics?

I know one I like to go to is the beginning of Hebrews, where it says the entire world is wearing out like a garment, right?

And so we see that the entire universe is breaking down. And that would be what we see with energy, right?

The useful energy is continuing to diminish over time. I'd be interested in your opinion, anyone who has one, on Isaiah 40, 22, it is he who sits above a circle of the earth and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

I think some would kind of... I think that's a reference to astronomy. Yes.

And it's a reference to the fact that God stretched the heavens. We think, most of us would say that, from a creation perspective, that those verses are not just poetry because they're repeated.

It's not just in Isaiah, it's in Jeremiah 10, it's in Zechariah. I can't remember the exact chapter it is in Zechariah where it actually says the same point, that God stretched the heavens, stretched the heavens.

Isaiah 40, Isaiah 42, a lot of them are in Isaiah. Now, I think it's physical that God literally stretched the heavens.

And it could be the reason why there is a cosmological redshift today, right? That it's not the

Big Bang, God made the stars, he put them in place on the fourth day and then at the end of the fourth day, pushed them right out, okay?

And there is still evidence that they're being pushed out. Expanding. Expanding.

It's not a four -dimensional expansion, it's a straightforward three -dimensional expansion, not of the stars, but of the expanse, which is space itself, in which he put the stars.

And it tells me in Genesis 1, verse 15, that he put the stars in the Shemayim, the heavens, which is the

Rakhia, which identifies the Rakhia, which is the word for expanse or firmament.

It's not a good translation for them. It gives the impression of a dome, it's not a dome.

That was the ancient Near Eastern people thought it was a dome. It's not the Hebrews thought it was a dome.

That's where John Walton goes wrong. Realize that John Walton says that the only way to understand

Genesis 1 is through the eyes of the ancient Near East. And he's totally wrong, because Moses was writing with the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit and getting it bang on right and saying that it's a Rakhia, which is an expanse, in which he put the stars.

And coming back to your point, the expansion of space. And a number of authors have picked up on this,

Ross Humphrey has picked up on this. He's the one who started this ball rolling. And Danny Faulkner, who's written the book,

I can't remember what it's called, the book on the stars, written by Answers in Genesis, Danny Faulkner.

He's really developed this. And once you get this in place, that there really is an expansion of space, we then see that God is in control of the whole universe.

He upholds all things by the word of his power. And then coming back to what Anthony said, in Hebrews, it's quoting

Psalm 102, which also mentions the rolling up of space.

That when it comes to the end, Matthew 24, it talks about the stars falling from heaven.

And he's going to fold up the universe like a garment. And the

Hebrews quotes that verse as well. So I don't think it's, I was coming to the point you were saying,

I don't think we should really use this as an example of thermodynamics. Because we're not talking about natural processes, we're talking about supernatural processes.

We're talking about the expansion of the universe. We're talking about even today, God sustaining all things by the word of his power.

If God didn't sustain the whole universe by the word of his power, it would collapse in a moment.

That's what that scripture is teaching. So it's not actually, in my mind, teaching the natural laws of thermodynamics.

It's actually saying, you have to be careful about pantheism here. We're not saying that God's in nature, but there is something about space.

There is something even about matter itself, which owes its sustaining to God himself.

You and I only exist because God continues to say that Cayce must still exist.

Have you ever thought that? You see, the evolutionist thinks that he exists because, well, as long as you've got something to start the process of, we carry on existing.

No, no, no, no. The only reason I exist is because God allows me to exist.

That changes everything. Yeah, some of us have had near -death experiences and said, well, God's still got a plan for my life.

That may be a bit simplistic, but right in line with what you're saying, he sustains everything.

You see where I'm going? Even though I respect you guys for saying, oh, can we use thermodynamic argument?

I would avoid it because actually, if you don't mind, I'm slightly disagreeing with you.

Well, I don't know whether you're seeing my point here, but I would say that it's not a good idea to get into thermodynamics as somehow saying that the

Bible's talking about thermodynamics. Well, yes and no. It's obviously not denying it, and I'm sure that as I eat, and the

Lord is telling me that I shouldn't, you know, thermodynamic laws were there in the beginning.

This is where I disagree with Henry Morris, who gave the impression that the second law was not there before the fourth.

No, I think it was there. The second law was there as Adam ate his food. It caused heat to come into his body and sustain him.

Well, that's part of the laws of thermodynamics. So there is a natural law going on in terms of our everyday food, but it's not, you know,

I don't think there's any, I don't think there's a great apologetic power in saying that we can actually envisage that the second law operating out in the universe at the moment.

Yes, in one sense, it's true. The stars are decaying, and yeah, I'd accept that.

But I don't think that we, if we push this too hard, we'll end up saying that he sustains all things by the word of his power is somehow not relevant.

Do you see that? I think we've got to be very careful how we use the laws or bring in the laws of physics.

Yeah. Real quick, real quick. Sorry. We, Casey, the question came in.

I'm trying to multitask. We have someone that's trying to put some porn links in the thing that I'm trying to block.

So, but Casey, it was asked of you what verse you were referring to. Isaiah chapter 40 and verse 22.

Okay, and then the book you were referred to, someone posted it, Jason Cave gave it, the new astronomy book,

Wonders of Creation by Danny Faulkner. Yeah, that's right. So I'm saying that this actually is not so much thermodynamics, it's actually the supernatural stretching of the heavens by God.

For that verse. For that verse and all the other verses all the way through the scriptures, which is actually showing that God is at work and sustaining everything even now, right?

I don't think we should be teaching that God has completely left the universe to itself.

I don't think he has. Scripture doesn't teach him that. Because in Colossians one, it says, by him all things consist.

Which is also why Christians shouldn't worry about the farce of climate change because God has control over everything.

Yeah. Well, okay, look, if you're gonna go there, we have to use proper terms. It's global warming.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. We entered the cooling cycle. It's the global ice age. Oh, wait, that was like 40 years ago.

That's right. Yeah, but you know, I gotta admit, I loved,

Ted Cruz was challenged when he was running for election by some like high school kid about this.

He says, what do you think about global? You don't think that global warming is a real issue?

And he goes, son, when I was your age, we were talking about entering into an ice age.

And they said that the only solution was government control. Now, suddenly, we're talking about a global warming and the solution is only government control.

Do you see a pattern? Good point. That's right.

So we do have a couple of comments and different questions backstage, Anthony. I didn't know if you wanna get to some of that.

We also have some prayer requests that came up. There's some that I think some of these questions look like they'd be directly for Andy, if we could get to some of these first.

So we have a tradition on the show that whenever we go past 10 o 'clock, it's called

Anthony time. Because when I host the show, we typically go late. So people have pointed it out in the chat already that we're well into Anthony time.

So thanks a lot for noticing and yeah, it's been great. Anthony very much enjoys when people are calling for Anthony time for us to go longer.

It starts at like 9 .30, people are asking for Anthony time. Yeah. Cole puts this question up, for you,

Andy. He said, one thing missed in the talk of fossils are the creatures from, excuse me, got sun in my throat, from temperature and subtropical climates found frozen in the

Arctic. What can you speak to that? Okay, I think there are some post flood fossilization that's taking place or at least post flood burial.

For instance, the mammoths found in Siberia, still with the food in their stomachs and not properly fossilized.

These almost certainly are from the ice age following the flood.

Michael thinks that they were possibly caught in a sandstorm and died.

And then the ice age came and they were basically buried in the ice. But they're not flood fossils.

They're not even proper fossils. They're actually just creatures which have been preserved, have died, and their meat has been preserved.

So there is room for post flood burial and to a certain extent, not a lot, but there are some post flood fossils as well.

Because after the upheaval of the flood, there was still the world settling down and there would still be some local events where you get rapid burials.

So I don't have a problem with that, that there is some evidence of post flood fossilization.

I don't know whether that answers the question fully. I've lost the question now. I can't see what the other part of the question said.

Well, I got rid of it. So I don't know that I have it. I'd have to go back and look. Let me put this one up that someone asked.

Dee asked this. Can someone say that some parts of the Bible are irrelevant and that person be considered a

Christian? Depends on their heart. We can't read their heart, only

God can. If they're saying in a rebellious way, I don't want to be subject to God's word, then that would put a doubt as to whether they're really the

Lords. But if they've just not really thought about the authority of the word of God and they're just a young believer who's just come to believe in the

Lord Jesus Christ. And frankly, that was the way I was. I don't think I'd understood the doctrine of the infallibility of scripture on the night that I became a

Christian. But as people explained to me the authority of the word of God, I more and more realized that I needed to subject myself to the

Bible. So it's the heart which is the issue here. And a person might well be a

Christian and not yet actually understood that the whole of the Bible is relevant. But if he's strongly saying, oh no, no,

I don't believe the Bible is relevant to be there, then that would put a question mark over them.

And I would say this, apologetically, how I would address this question, Dee, might be a little bit different.

Because I would get to the core issue and ask the question, how can somebody say that any part of God's word is irrelevant?

Get back to the core issue. What they're saying is that a human being is placing themselves as judge over God's word to say what things are relevant and what things aren't.

And same thing when you have people that say, well, that's not really God's word, that's not scripture and this is, that's just Paul's opinion.

No, it's either God's word or it's not. And when someone says, well, that's irrelevant or that's not scripture, they've just placed themselves as judge over God's word.

And James four or five, I forget which, speaks to that and says, that's a pretty dangerous position to be in.

He actually speaks to that when you're judging a fellow brother. And he says, you put yourself above God when you do that.

So I would, my way of answering this, D, would be a little bit different because I'd back off of the question of saying, are they a

Christian or not? And saying, what would make you think that you're in a position to question

God's word? We do know someone in the Bible that did that and he got kind of chastised.

His name is Job. And he had several chapters of embarrassment as God asked him a whole lot of questions he couldn't answer.

So Anthony, you start this next one. I'm gonna put it up. So I figured there must be a reason you wanted this and maybe for Andy, maybe it's from, because of where he's from.

The Church of England has now decided to bless same sex, same sex, so -called quote, marriage, unquote, which is not marriage.

This is from KT. Yeah, so first they bring the tea to us and now they're bringing a same sex marriage to us here in America.

I think I'd put those in two different categories. I would have to argue that that sure sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

But seriously, what KT has brought here is a very serious matter.

And basically the Church of England for a long while has been on a downhill slope.

J .C. Ryle, the greatest bishop, the evangelical bishop of the 1800s,

I'm sure would have questioned staying in the Church of England now. I'm not sure that anybody who stays in the

Church of England can really, you know, they've stayed in for so long trying to change it from the inside, but I would say better to come out of the

Church of England now. And I would recommend all real believers, and there are still some in the

Church of England, to come out because it's an apostate group.

And I want to give kudos to KT and point something out for everyone to notice in the way she worded the question, because the way this is phrased typically is gay marriage.

And I want you to see how she worded it because homosexuals get married all the time.

Gays get married to opposite sex all the time. That's always been, no one's preventing them from getting married.

But what they're doing is redefining marriage to say that people of the same sex can get married.

And that is the issue. The issue is not whether gays can marry. The issue is whether people of the same sex can be married.

And now we have to even address whether they're the same sex biologically because, well, now even that's up in the air.

You know, I don't know if you guys saw the person who came out that he was transgender but married to a woman who was transgender.

So they're both transgender. And wouldn't you know, both their children are transgender. But it's not taught.

It's not taught. No way. Yeah. Well, do you guys see the tragedy of that, of a gay couple in Georgia who adopted a couple of kids, two boys, and then they started pimping them out, sodomizing them and pimping them out.

So they're now in jail and the media has not reported on this at all. But yet Christians that have a

Christian worldview are not allowed to adopt because of just the ideology they call child abuse.

Well, there was a Christian agency that pulled these kids from the grandparents and started this sodomite couple.

Well, there was also the girl who ran away. She ran away from home at 14,

I think is when she ran away. And she was human trafficked. She was rescued from that, but because her grandmother will not refer to her as a boy, they would not let her go back to the grandmother.

And they actually put her in a home down in Texas, I believe it was, where she again was human trafficked, rescued a second time.

And so, and the thing is, had she gone back to her mom, the only reason they wouldn't give her to her grandmother is the view she has on this.

So there are a couple of prayer requests that came in as well, but I just wanna get to those. And Melissa has been waiting patiently in the back.

I see that you selected something she wants to say, but just a prayer request for her. She's been having high blood pressure issues.

She said not super high, but more than normal 140 to 150 on the top and 100 on the bottom.

And so there's a lot you could do. I will say with blood pressure, the number one thing that,

I mean, losing weight will help exercise, helps a lot. But there's some things that Anthony turned me onto that helped,

I actually have it right here. So it's perfectly, perfect product placement is the Niacin B3, but as Anthony made me do is to get that with the flush.

Boy, will you not like that feeling? I don't do it on the show cause I turn super red.

It's an uncomfortable feeling, but it has helped with the blood pressure. I'm off all my blood pressure meds.

Something about nearly dying because of blood pressure medicine helped me to get off them. Another prayer request from Phil.

He's asking, Phil Chavez is asking Lorraine Chavez to be healed of memory loss, hearing loss and health problems, be restored to flawless health in Jesus name.

She possesses, possessions and finances be restored anew in Jesus name.

So he asked in prayer, I believe that's his wife. All right. So real quick,

I guess we could bring, do you wanna bring Melissa in? Yeah, as you bring her in, I'll throw a couple of comments up.

One's lost but now found says the greatest Bishop is from Liverpool and that Liverpool is greater than Manchester.

I'm thankful about that. I think you're referring to football too. So Melissa is asking whether she might be able to talk about my pillow.

So there she is. I finally gave in to the therapy code for my pillow.

I was wondering if it was supposed to be like this, like it's not totally firm. Yeah. It does, it does like,

I have a pillow that's kind of more firm when

I put this one on. It works pretty good. I don't know if I could do it without it. Do you do it yours without any other pillow?

So I do, when I travel, my wife has a smaller one, a travel size one, and she puts that on the hotel pillow and sleeps on it that way.

I have a firmer one, so I do like it. Yeah, mine works on, I have a firm pillow and I put it on top, works pretty good.

Yeah, you can get the different firms, firmness, size. So they have a chart on it if you go to MyPillow.

And so we, Andy, we always say that folks get in MyPillow and they show a picture, we'll, but Melissa's a faithful listener and we brought her in on camera, but so if folks want to get on MyPillow, go to MyPillow .com,

use promo code SFE, and that's how they know to continue supporting the show.

So we appreciate that you use the discount, but the discount also gets you a pretty good discount, sometimes more than half off.

So I'm glad you're enjoying it. Yeah, and I listen to Truth Be Told Radio on Black Hawk Radio on Sundays.

All right, there you go. Thanks for coming in, Melissa. I see one more question that I don't know that we're going to have a chance to fully answer in this episode.

Maybe we should do a separate one. Bill early on asked if I could exegete John 6, 37 to 40, that it's the elect and not my he disciples.

I think he means that it's the elect and not Jesus' disciples. First off, Bill, I'll say this.

When we exegete scripture, we don't start with the conclusion. So I can't do this because I can't exegete it to prove a point.

I would exegete the passage and come to that conclusion, which I think is the conclusion I would come to, is that he is speaking about believers there, but we don't have enough time in this episode.

So we'll take that down, Bill, as a note to do a future episode on that, if that's okay. And that gets us through all the questions we had backstage.

Anthony, I don't know what it is with you. We have somebody who really is trying to post a lot of bad things in the comments.

And I keep having to, it comes in over and over again, I keep having to block them. I keep seeing it, yeah. I don't know what's going on there.

So it's obvious an atheist, it doesn't sound like creation. Yeah, it is interesting that, and Andy, I'll just say this.

Whenever we get a creation scientist to come in, that is the one time that we get usually the most vilest people in the chat.

We have to be careful in chat. We could talk almost any other topic. Quite interesting that we've spoken against things like same -sex relationships, transgenderism.

We don't get the response we do when we have a creation scientist. But I think that goes right back to the quote that you gave earlier from where they really realizing that if you accept the creationist argument, you've just blown all of their fake science out the window.

There's no room for the two of them. So Andy, is there anything else you wanna be able to talk about as we start to get ready to wrap up the show?

I think the main thing is, if you're a Christian viewing this program, keep yourselves in the love of God and keep yourselves in the word of God, which of course are always going to be in agreement.

It says in the book of Jude that he is able to keep us from falling.

And I remind you what I said earlier, I'm speaking to myself, we are all in danger.

He that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall. We need to look to Christ.

We need to keep ourselves in the love of God, in Christ. And if we fall and we will fall, the blood of Jesus Christ, God's son, cleanses us from all sin.

I'm a strong one for saying that doctrine is only understood by a humble walk with God.

Paul, the greatest apologist, surely, other than the Lord Jesus himself, he was constantly reminding himself of the truth of Christ himself.

I strive for the mastery. I strive to be, you know, Philippians written at the end of his life, he was looking to Christ.

I'll just read, let me just read to you a little bit of Philippians four, because I think this spirit is what we need.

If you're not a Christian, you might listen to this as well, because here's a great person right at the end of his days, saying

Philippians three, when it's there right through the whole letter, really.

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. And then it goes on to say that he says, he says in Philippians chapter three, that I may know him, verse 10, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being made conformable unto his death.

If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead, not as though I had already obtained, you see the humility of what he's saying here, either were already perfect, but I follow after, if that I may apprehend, if I may gain, that for which also

I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. I count not myself to have apprehended, but this one thing

I do, forgetting those things which are before and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

So I recommend to you all, follow Christ, keep Christ in your vision.

Hebrews says, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. I haven't yet finished my course.

Two years ago, I almost did. I had a heart attack and I was on the operating table by God's grace.

He brought me back and it was during COVID times. I couldn't see my wife and she thought that she might well have not had me back at all.

But God graciously brought me back again. I don't know why, but I suspect it may be to do with a little bit more of the work perhaps that he has for me to do.

But one thing it's left me thinking is that I need to think always that this day is my end, my last day.

And Psalm 31 verse 15 says, my days are, or my times,

I should say, are in his hand. So look to Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith.

Andy, how could people get in touch with you or find some of your works? Well, I'd rather not give my email because I just get so emailed.

Yeah, that might not be good. But you have a direct email. But if people want to get hold of my works, go to answersingenesis .com

or go to, I've got another one here. I've got a slide here somewhere, but I can't find it.

The creationministriesinternational .com. Google Creation Ministries International or Answers in Genesis.

And most of my books and literature are there. I've written a book, Genesis for Today. I've written another book,

Genesis 1 to 11. I've written with Stuart Burgess, the book, Wonders of Creation.

And then there's a small little booklet called, Is It True? Which is a summary of that big book, big coffee table book.

And then I've written a little tract which answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

I think they've both got it. Which is called, Are You Really an Atheist? If there's an atheist listening to this program, watching it.

I challenge you to consider again, your position. I'd love to ask you if I over coffee, where does your mind come from?

That's one of the biggest issues an atheist just cannot answer. Where does his own mind come from?

And so if you want my literature, if you want my DVDs, some of them are there also on the

Answers in Genesis website. Well, we do thank you. And Anthony, I'm surprised you don't put this up.

So I'll put it up before you get to it. Max says, is Andrew the only one not a doctor?

LOL. He's obviously been listening to this show quite a lot. So let me explain some,

Max. Some that a friend of mine said, many years ago when I worked at Bell Laboratories doing research, it was me and this other gentleman.

They were trying to promote us, but they couldn't promote him because he didn't have a master's degree.

And back then the company required a master's degree to get promoted to our level. And he had a very good and interesting argument that helped both of us because it counted for both of us.

He turned and said, well, when guys with PhDs come to Andrew and I to have questions answered, we have an earned

PhD. LOL. And so they actually promoted both of us to that level and with him not having a master's.

So there you go. I am gonna get you the same honorary PhD that Ravi Zacharias has.

Well, I'm glad you mentioned that. And we talked about that. We talked about Ravi and his degree.

And therefore my previous co -host on The Wrap Report, he gave me my doctorate degree right here.

He printed it himself, just like Ravi Zacharias's one so that we can say

I have a, in the Universal Life Church Seminary, a doctor of divinity.

And he just wrote Andrew Wrap Report that's framed it in everything. So that's just like what

Ravi has. Oh, wait, I don't even believe Ravi has that. He just has the claim. Just don't go buy massage parlors.

Yeah. Now let's give context to that really quick because we can't make a comment like that and people go, what?

So one of the criticisms I had for Ravi Zacharias, if you go back to a previous, just search Ravi Zacharias on Apologetics Live, you'll see we did a detailed.

One of the reasons that I had issue with Ravi was the fact that many, many years ago, the university that he claims he got his

PhD from and he claimed he taught at had to put out on their own website.

I read it on their website in India. They put out an article saying that Ravi Zacharias never attended a single class and never worked there a day of his life.

They in fact said that they have no evidence that Ravi Zacharias was even on campus. So that was damaging.

And so there's been the other issues with finances and then we now know what has come out with him and the massage parlors.

So that to say, the joking is there, but it is serious stuff.

And this is why just because someone has a brilliant mind, we shouldn't just take that and say, someone like a

William Lane Craig we mentioned, he's got a brilliant mind. Don't discredit how intelligent and smart he is.

However, look at the arguments he's making and say, are those really good biblical arguments? Well, you said it earlier about elders needing to be above reproach, right?

That's the qualification. Everything else follows from that. And that really is the standard for biblical men in general, especially men in leadership positions.

And it was clear he was not above reproach, nor was his ministry who helped cover up all those things as we had talked about on that show.

Yeah, you're right. We crack jokes about it, but in reality, it's a real serious issue. And what a real blight and a black eye for Christianity with all that.

So I know Steve has been somewhat quiet and we just, since he's new on the show, wanna give him a chance.

He's got a couple of articles out on his website. So I wanna let him plug that.

He's got three articles, a whole lot, no. But two on the time, the starlight theory, a little bit different than the view that Jason Lyle would have.

And I wanna commend those to you for reading. So Steve, if you wanna just let folks know where they could get your articles and find out more about you.

Okay, well, this is on the, it's a site that David Reeves has put out, but there's a lot of questions that are on that site and I can get the website for you for that.

I think I've sent it to you, but I can try to give it to you. But anyway - Davidreeves .com.

Yeah, well, I can pull it up right here. I've actually got it quickly.

And thank you, Andrew, for pointing me in that direction. But anyway,

I did write how you can witness very easily if you're riding in the car with somebody.

And it's a very useful way of witnessing. I think that many people can read it and see that from an engineering perspective, it really flows as you're pointing out the pavements, the cars and everything else are very complicated, the signage, the traffic engineering, the bridges, all that's very complicated.

And yet you look at the birds flying around or maybe a squirrel out there or a plant or something like that.

Those are all far beyond the capabilities of engineering and they're much more complicated.

And so it's kind of logical to say that there's a super engineer of sorts must have been involved in that.

And we would call him the Christian God of the Bible. And the second one is on starlight and time.

And it's something I had to deal with. It was when I was first presented with it, I was teaching at the

Air Force Institute of Technology in Dayton, Ohio, Wright -Patterson Air Force Base, teaching electrical engineering.

There was a man I very much respected who was on faculty with me. And he basically said that Earth was 6 to 10 ,000 years old.

And I knew because I was a former astrophysics major,

I knew the Andromeda galaxy, which played a big part in early astronomy.

I knew it was 200 million light years away. So I just went home. I told him,

Rob, nobody believes that. And I was gonna help him out of his view.

And basically I went home and checked. And sure enough, my two astronomy books, I still have from my classes, said exactly what

I said. So I knew I was seeing light from the Andromeda galaxy 200 million years ago.

But after I started reading some of what Andy called books by Henry Morris, here was a guy

I could respect. I mean, he was a Dean of Engineering at Virginia Tech. And he's writing on hydrology and the

Genesis flood. And I'm seeing arguments I've never seen before. And so all of a sudden, I have to start rethinking what

I'm doing. And so I sort of put the astronomy on the back shelf and looked at the other arguments.

After about five or six months, it was May, I think. I started this in January. I just couldn't believe evolution anymore.

And that was a major change in my life. And so I had to end up looking at who

Jesus Christ was. I became a Christian, strong Christian. Apologetics was the thing that got me to where I was.

So I had a passion for apologetics. And then I revisited this idea of how can we understand this and I read pretty much what all the creationists were saying about starlight and time.

I'm going, I'm just not sure people are gonna understand the horizon problem. I'm not sure they're gonna understand many of the things that are talked about by Humphreys and stuff like that.

And I said, well, I wanna think about it. And so I went back to when was the speed of light measured? And I looked at, in terms of backwards extrapolations of data.

And so when I did that, I realized that Leon Foucault, who is known for the

Foucault pendulum, but nevertheless, it was 1862 when he developed his experiment that got a very close value to the speed of light, the actual speed of light.

And using that value, I said, okay, I have about 150 years of data. If I do this on a whiteboard, that's about, if I give a hundred years to a foot, then

I would have about one and a half feet on my whiteboard. And the rest is the speed of light is constant for 13 .7

or 13 .8 billion years. It was 13 .7 when I originally did it, 13 .8 now.

And I went ahead and did the backwards extrapolation using my hundred years for one foot.

And it ended up being more than 26 ,000 miles was the backwards extrapolation.

It's a huge, massive, massive assumption. And what we're saying is, even though we have experimentation that can tell us that the speed of light can be slowed down and everything else, and there's some newer experimentations where they're seeing neutrinos and stuff maybe exceeding the speed of light.

You can Google that and look it up. Why can't God just stretch out the heavens like he said at somewhere, maybe the speed of light was infinite when he stretched them out.

How do we really know we're seeing Andromeda as it looked 200 million years ago?

We don't really know that. It's a huge backwards extrapolation and engineers hate huge extrapolations.

That's how engineering failures occur, is when you misuse the data.

And so really the idea being is we have interpretation of evidence.

We're making an interpretation that says speed of light's been constant for 13 .8 billion years.

That is a huge, massive assumption. And so that's my point is, look,

God could have done it differently and we're flat out misinterpreting. So I'm gonna sit with the

Bible and say, I'm okay with it. Yeah. That's how I wrote that article. And so for the folks who asked, his name is

Dr. Steve Hendrickson. So I guess his last name wasn't given or someone missed it. Not Dr.,

but yeah. Oh. Okay, so - Can I just say something, Andrew, that I mentioned the book about Christopher Hitchens.

The book title is The Faith of Christopher Hitchens by Larry Taunton, at Larry Alex Taunton.

And it is worth reading. It's not saying he became a

Christian, but it is saying that towards the end of his days, there was some very interesting conversations going on.

Yeah, now in Hitchens' case, he had a brother who, from what we can gather, was a believer.

Well, he's still alive. Yeah, yeah, he's still. So just some things for you,

Andy. We got some comments in. Melissa said, amen. Thank you, Dr. McIntosh. We appreciate you taking time to be here tonight.

God bless you, brother. Max said, yes, thank you, Dr. McIntosh.

It was a pleasure listening to you. And I would agree with that. So folks, we thank you. Let me give you guys an update of what we're gonna be doing the next couple of shows.

Just so you know, we may or may not be doing live. I have prerecorded the following shows, but Anthony or Justin may do some live shows, so I encourage you to check out.

But I did set up some shows that are from a while ago, so these are ones that you might not remember watching.

But unless Anthony or Justin do a live show, next week, we will have a show that'll be with Justin Peters on Can Women Preach and talking about the word of faith.

That's February 16th. February 23rd, we're gonna have an old one with Matt Slick on talking about, is

Calvinism a cult? And then March 2nd, we're gonna have one where Anthony and Pastor Justin talked about why

Black Lives Matter is satanic. That was a popular one. March 16th, we'll set up, and this is preparing now for my debate that I'll have on March 23rd.

March 16th, we'll do a show on responding to a Black Hebrew Israelite.

Oh, sorry, before that is the one on Hebrew roots and Black Hebrew Israelites on March 9th.

And then we'll respond to Black Hebrew Israelites. We'll have vocab Malone on there. And then on March 23rd,

I will be back. I will be live, so I'll be back from Israel. I'll be back from Tennessee. I'll be back from Shepherds Conference.

So the 23rd will be a debate on does the Bible teach the concept of the

Trinity? With, no, no, not just one Black Hebrew Israelite, because you can never debate just one because they have to come in a pack.

Yes, it will be three or four of them against me. They wanted me to get three or four friends so that it could be even.

I said, that's okay. I have a Bible. You already lost. We don't even need me.

I'm just gonna read the Bible and say, well done. Now we're done, okay? So that's what's coming up, but we might have some live shows.

So I do ask that you guys be praying as we head to Israel. Justin Peters and Jim Osman are there now.

They're there for two weeks. They'll come home. We'll go there. So that will be a good time.

And with that, you know what? We opened with a commercial from Ben Shapiro.

And so we'll end with another one from Ben Shapiro, something he gave for The Wrap Report.

Let's give a listen to Ben. Have you been following my friend,

Andrew Rapaport's Wrap Report podcast? If not, what is wrong with you? Do you wanna have a biblical understanding of the

Christian life and culture? Andrew Rapaport of Striving for Eternity provides biblical interpretations and applications for the

Christian life and culture. You may not need to listen to every episode of The Wrap Report to go to heaven, but why take the chance?