Exploring the Creation vs Evolution Dilemma

For YouTube. And then I'm going to go ahead and click on go live for Facebook. And so this is this moment in time that we're not entirely sure. So we're gonna, we're gonna repeat one of the jokes that somebody shared today.

I hope that I can repeat it correctly. It was what do you call a little person who's clairvoyant and running from the law? It's a small medium at.

Large. Yeah, escape from jail.

That's actually pretty good.

Okay. All right. So let's get started. I'm Terry cameras. Oh, here with Creation Fellowship. Santee. We're a group of friends bound by our common agreement that the creation account is told in Genesis is a true depiction of how God created the universe and all life from nothing in just six days.

A few thousand years ago. We've been meeting most Thursday nights here on zoom since June of 2020. We've been blessed with presentations by pastors, teachers, doctors, cartoonists, scientists, apologists, and all around smarty pants people who love the Lord and have a message to share.

You can find most of our past videos by searching Creation Fellowship Santee. That's s a n t e on YouTube. Follow us on our Creation Fellowship Santee Facebook page and sign up for our email list by emailing Creation Fellowship Santee at gmail .com.

So you don't miss any of our upcoming speakers. We've been taking a little bit of a recess for the last few weeks, but we're glad to be back. And our first presentation to get us started is kind of a back to basics presentation.

We have Pastor Carl Payne here with us. Dr. Payne is a pastor, teacher, speaker, author and former NFL chaplain. He is currently on staff at Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Washington, where his primary role is serving as pastor of leadership development and discipleship training.

He served as the chaplain for the Seattle Seahawks football team from 1994 to 2015. He is an apologist and a discipleship trainer. He's written several books, including his most recent one on spiritual warfare called Christians demonization and deliverance.

And you can find that when it's published by World Net Daily. And we're happy to have him on tonight to tell us about his present to give us his presentation of exploring the creation evolution dilemma.

And I think also Pastor Carl, if you want to tell us about your worldview apologetics conference that you do, that would be great to hear about too. So okay.

Thank you. Now if I am keeping within the parameters that I understood, I'm to be done at 730, which means I've got about 34 minutes. So.

Worldview Apologetics and the Speaker’s Background

Yeah, 730 to 745. If you're done by 745, that gives us a solid 15 minutes for q &a.

Okay, well, I just I want to do what you ask. Sure. That'd be great. Well, you mentioned the worldview apologetics. We started that in 2003. It's the third weekend of April. Every year, we've done it annually, unless it conflicted with Easter.

Our speakers, we had Dr. Gish twice back in, I'm sure you're familiar with Dr. Gish. We've had Mike Riddle. We've had so many. William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Norm Geisler, both the McDowell, Sean and Josh, Greg Cockel.

Just what I have tried to bring in the top apologists each year. It's gone from something small to something large. We homeschooled. So when I set it up originally with a buddy of mine, Doug Givitt, who's been there each year with me, head of the philosophy department at Talbot for a number of years, I said I wanted it to be inexpensive enough that homeschool families could come.

Because if homeschool families or anything like we were, you have one person bringing in income typically, and then the other person doing all the hard work. And it doesn't make for conferences and things like that being affordable very often.

So we priced it so that individuals can come, students can come, students get a break, families can come. And I said, as long as we make enough money that I've got seed money for the next year, we'll keep doing it and we're coming close to 20 years on it.

So if you're interested, third weekend of April, we've had to cancel the last two. This year, I did something a little different. I had a virtual conference, because I didn't want to be shut out two years in a row.

So we put 15, 16 talks up, which people through the month of May were able to watch. And again, lots of lots of really fine, fine speakers. I ended it with the last debate between Dwayne Gish and Reza Doolittle, which most people have not seen.

I don't imagine many of you have seen it. I moderated it. We had several thousand people there in 92. I had the masters, I threw them in a drawer, forgot about them for about 30 years, finally had the masters dubbed.

And I said, you know what, let's end this year's Apologize Conference, letting people see a debate of the last one. And it was epic. It was really good. And if you're interested in that, let me know, we can probably figure something out.

So that's that's that's that. I will usually say something to the effect of I'm a pastor, not a scientist. I don't pretend to be a scientist. I'm the son of a scientist. My dad was both had graduate degrees in both science and mathematics.

And my dad was a teacher. I was taught evolutionary neo-Darwinism before I could even read. As a little guy, my dad used to lay pictures out on the floor and show me the little monkey man series that, you know, has become so famous.

And I was born in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. So I was typically interested in Nebraska man because I thought, look, somebody from our state made the made the missing link. Montage, I was in college, I was my became a Christian, my last year of high school, as a senior in high school.

I have said, I think this is unfortunate, but it's truth. I did not know there was an alternative to Darwinism or neo-Darwinism until I was in college. After I become a Christian. I had no idea. That's the only thing I'd ever heard about origins was evolution.

Just wasn't talked about. Dwayne Gish became a genuine friend. He's with Jesus, but he would claim me. Henry Morris was a friend, he would claim me. I worked with Marvin Lubenow. We were at the same church when I was working with Dave Jeremiah, his college pastor 30 years ago.

So I got to be around a number of the people that John Morris, a number of the people that I believe have been iconic in this whole argument, this whole debate. So at any rate, what am I saying? I'm not a scientist.

I don't pretend to be but I am a voracious reader and have been since I was young. I have thought it odd that Darwinists will often tell me that since I'm trained as a pastor, I ought not to be speaking about science, but I've said, you know, you're trained as a scientist, but you have no problems speaking about the Bible.

That's kind of odd to me that you can talk and I can't. If we can both read and if we can both think, let's have a level ground instead of kind of an academic snobbery that stays between us. I will tell you one thing, just my dad became a Christian nine months before he died, after teaching evolutionary biology.

I caught a little note that he'd written, but before he died, when I was clearing out of the house, he said, I can no longer teach or believe that organization, you know, comes out of entropy, that things don't organize themselves.

You don't get complexity. He said, things that are complex disintegrate, they die. You see entropy, but you don't see it working the other way around. He said, I just can't teach that anymore. For some of you that appreciate the Institute, I had lined him up for a weekend with Henry Morris and Dwayne Gish.

My dad in California, he was a big time academic guy. He spent the weekend, he came back to me and he said, that Gish fellow brought up things that I've always assumed and never really had to be challenged by.

He said, I want to read more. For 32 years, I couldn't get him to read anything. He said, I don't need Jesus. I just don't need this. All to say, I've been around the topic. I'm not a scientist. Don't pretend to be.

What I want to share with you tonight, in the time that I have, will be a little bit of an overview over when I am presenting this. I've done this with high school kids. I've done this with college kids.

I've done this with moms and dads. I've done this with people who are favorable and friendly. I've done this with people that are hostile. I don't really much care. I figure if you know what you're talking about, put it on the table.

If you're going to share cliches with me, we'll blow through that real fast. I'm just interested. I don't try to make a good guy, bad guy. I have never said that the creationists are the smart guys, the evolutionists are the dumb guys.

I don't think that kind of thing is necessary at all. Frankly, it's not true. We just have different worldviews. If I believe there is a God, it would make sense he can create. If somebody doesn't believe there's a God, they've got to explain how we got here somehow.

You can have very intelligent people that just end up at 180 degrees apart because their worldviews are so different. Here's what I've tried to do. I tell people in my training classes, Terry already said I'm a discipleship trainer.

That's right. I write manuals, books on discipleship. They're all over the country now. That's not an exaggeration. Different churches and groups using them. I will say there's nothing unique about the verses.

If there's anything unique about what I do with the discipleship, it's that it's transferable. If when we're done, you cannot use what I gave you, then I failed you. I don't put that on the student. If they're willing to try, I put that on the teacher.

If the teacher is not a trainer, they can share all kinds of info, but if they don't lay it out in a way that you can walk away using it, maybe they feel good about what they did, but I as a person wanting to be able to reproduce it, don't feel so good because my thought is I'm just not as smart as the teacher.

I try to keep things very simple. I try to keep them very straightforward. I try to keep the main thing the main thing and I try to make things transferable. There may be some areas with the evolution creation because of the years I could take into the weeds, but I haven't found that helpful.

I know there would be people that could take me into the weeds on minutia, but I'm still going to come back to some of the basic issues that I like to bring up on the outline that I gave you. I'm just going to walk through some of this.

Again, if you have questions at the end, we'll save some time there. I started with a quote from Carl Sagan. The cosmos is all it is or ever was or ever shall be. Life, consciousness, intelligence. These are some of the things hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of cosmic evolution.

I've chuckled a little when I was in high school, the universe was 4 .3 billion years. The more complex we've finally figured out things are then just add a billion years here, a billion years there. So in my lifetime, I've watched the academics change it from 4 .3 billion years to 15 billion years.

I go, what's next? I don't know. I have no way of knowing. They're guessing. Primary issue. I'm going to have to be careful. I love to tell stories, but time-wise, I'm just not going to be able to do it.

I'll tell one story. Maybe you'll cheat and tell a few more. I was invited to speak to an honors biology class when I was in Spokane for about 10 years working as a youth pastor. And the students were asked to bring in speakers.

Empirical Science, Worldviews, and the Creation-Evolution Debate

And so one of the students knew me and brought me in. And it was very clear that the teacher's intent was to humiliate the preacher because they're idiots. They go off six days a week. You know, they don't think all they do is take advantage of you.

And I was bound and determined not to fulfill that stereotype. But at any rate, I started making a presentation and he let me know several times he was a PhD. And I thought, okay, I understood that the first time.

You've got a PhD in biology, so you're real smart. And I didn't have a doctorate at that time. I almost got a master's degree in divinity. So who am I to talk about this subject? And he said, I have a question to ask.

He interrupted me. And he said, have you ever observed God create? And I said, no, I haven't. And he said, if you haven't observed God create the first time, is it safe to assume you have not watched him create multiple times?

And I said, yes, that would be safe. And he said, have you, Pastor Payne, ever figured out a way to falsify your supposition that God creates? And I said, no, I would not have a real good motivation for trying to figure out why God can't create, why I think he's the creator.

And then he turned the class and he said, we've talked about empirical science, and we've talked about facts versus faith and fables. And he said, what have we learned? And he parroted the group through that you've got to be able to test something, falsify it.

You've got to be able to observe the results firsthand. And you've got to be able to repeat that process multiple times to be certain it wasn't a fluke. And he said, Mr. Payne, or Pastor, whatever he called him, he was digging on the pastor.

He says, what you have to share, I'm sure you're sincere about, you know, you're free to share that as something you believe, but you certainly can't try and say that that has anything to do with science.

That's a fable. And people started laughing, except for the handful of people that had brought me in, and they were, I don't know if they were hiding under their chairs, I don't know what they were doing.

And I said, that's fair point, I guess, Professor, I said, can I ask you a question? And he said, what's that? And I said, when was the last time you observed Neo Darwin evolution occurring? And he said, well, that's not fair.

It takes so long. Of course, I couldn't see that in my lifetime. I said, well, I'll take that as you've never seen it. I said, if you haven't observed it the first time, can I assume that you haven't watched it occur on multiple occasions?

He looked at me and he said, well, yes, that's true. And I said, can you tell me how you falsify? What's your test for falsifying your premise about, you know, everything coming from nothing, ultimately?

Okay, can you tell us what that is? And he said, well, all the information we gather, goes right back in the verifying the process. And I said, so you don't have a test, you can't falsify your premise.

You've never observed it firsthand. And you've not seen it repeated. Is that accurate? And man, I'll tell you, students were looking up. And he just kind of looked at me. And I said, you know, you said, because creation, you know, fails those three tests that I believe in fables.

I said, is it fair to say that you believe in a fable as well? And it just changed the whole tenor of the whole whole meeting, instead of people just kind of glaring and sneering, it was like people, they started looking at great questions afterwards.

It was actually a good day that had been set up to be a horrible day. I like to say, let's start with primary issues. If you've got the outline, I say number one, when you're talking creation, evolution, you're talking about philosophical suppositions, not intelligence.

You can have bright people on both sides of this, they just have different worldviews. We've talked about that. B, basic worldviews. That's what we're talking about. Not science versus superstition. Number three, we're supposed to be talking about empirical data, not metaphysics.

I want to keep you know, Dwayne Gish, I love that man. Again, I'm not a name dropper on purpose. He was a genuine friend. If you have listened to debate after debate, then he kept things so straightforward, so understandable.

And as much as he would get baited, he'd just keep it back to foundational issues, fundamental issues. And he would win. He won all over the country. He told me one time he said, well, if you have the information, you ought to win the debate.

I said, that's fair enough. Number two, both creation and evolution models fail a test for empirical science. Neither one of them, we weren't there. And that's my point, what I was sharing with the PhD in biology, who was, you know, so smug.

You know, you want to call your science and mine fables. The truth is, you weren't there, you don't observe it, and you don't see it repeated. So if you're going to castigate me as someone who talks about fables, are you going to admit that you're in the same boat?

My reason for doing that when I am talking is I want to level the field. I understand academic snobbery. I mean, I get it. I grew up in a home where academia was a big deal. If you weren't involved in either academics or athletics, I mean, that's what you live for.

That's what I was. We weren't Christians. I didn't have, I didn't have, we didn't read a Bible. I don't remember, I did not go to church after first Sunday of seventh grade unless mom asked me if I would go because we could sing hymns on Christmas Eve.

I would go to that because I like to sing. But we didn't know. I don't remember in my family, mom and dad saying it's a bad thing, or it's a good thing. It was just something that was there and it wasn't really relevant for us.

So I wasn't hostile to Christianity. I wasn't supportive of it in the sense of knowing anything about it. I am a perfect example that you can grow up in this country in a middle or lower middle class home, you know, as far as economics, and you can be absolutely clueless about Jesus or Christianity.

Eighth grade, my science teacher said that God was an excuse for mental cripples. Like my eighth grade science teacher, that impacted me. Dr. Nubin, who was my 11th grade physiology teacher said, if you want to be considered intelligent, you need to believe evolution is true.

So I wanted to be considered intelligent. Again, I just, it just wasn't a big deal to me. Just if I came up, I'm thinking, well, what is there other than what my dad laid out the pictures for me when I was a little kid, I guess that's how it all works.

When I finally found out that the people that are sharing that most of the time cannot fill in the dots. And most of the time, they will accuse me of making assumptions when they make assumptions every bit as big as mine.

Whereas Geisler in his book, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, and I read his 11 chapters. And I'm not perfectly on page with every one of his chapters and all of his conclusions, but he's good.

His basic premises, I thought were really strong. It's harder for me to believe what you do than for me to believe what I do. I remember one of the premises that he says in one of the chapters, he says, if we're going to talk about empiricism, you know, being scientific, he said, I think it's, it's far easier as an empiricist or a rationalist to believe that everything came from something than to believe that everything came from nothing.

That made me think of Billy Preston, my one of my, one of my heroes from Motown many years ago, when he wrote nothing from nothing leaves nothing. I think you got it right. And I think there's relevance there with origins.

Number three, since neither model, the creation model or the evolution model, if you really want to be honest about doesn't represent empirical science, when it fails a threefold test that it's supposed to pass, if it's supposed to be empirical data, then I suggest we have models, and we can see which of the models does the best job coming as close as we can come to material that is empirically sound, it is empirically solid.

It can be tested with a, with a, with an empirical testing. And, you know, you can put it in the test tube, you can see the results, you can repeat the results. If I tell you that the soap floats in water, I can tell you that you say that's an opinion.

So I fill things up, I throw soap in it, folks, it floats on the top, I pull the plug, everything goes away, I fill it back up again, I throw more sudsy beds and soap in there floats again, I do that 1000 times, I can say I have empirically demonstrated, I have a, I can falsify it may not work.

I said it will float, maybe it didn't, we found a test, we observed the results firsthand, we repeated them, we got the same results, that is empirical data. That is different for me just making a statement, everything evolved from nothing, or everything was created by God.

I wasn't there and you weren't either. So what are what are issues that I can look at the first one I put in that, on that outline was thermodynamics. You know, you law one, you know, energy is not being created, or destroyed, it can change form, but we've got what we've got law one, law two, the amount of energy available for use for work is constantly running down.

I started bringing that up in college when I had questions and hold it, I bought into the evolution creation now as a Christian, again, I didn't know there was an argument. I didn't know there was an alternative.

But I have a question now, if God is perfect, and God creates, he would create everything I would assume consistent with his nature, it would be perfect. Since things clearly are not perfect, I would say that if I want to say things are running down, I would say that's very consistent with what I see.

I buy a car, I park it up on a hill, 20 years from now, it is not a new model of a car 20 years newer, the tires are shot, you know, all the rubbers rotted out, rats have probably filled it full of junk, etc, etc.

It doesn't evolve into something bigger and better. That is how the world works. And yet, I'm even asked to believe as a neo Darwinist, that things are constantly in a flux of moving towards complexity, that given enough time, matter time, energy chance mutations will eventually always move things up.

And I thought, in the world I live in, that doesn't work. That's not what I see. I think I see things going from complexity to randomness. That's what my dad was saying. When he said, I can't teach that anymore.

I don't see things moving from randomness to complexity. The arrow goes the wrong way. First thing that I thought about was throwing it out. I had someone throw in my face. Well, doesn't the sun more than compensate for the loss of the of the energy that you may be right that as far as we know, in the systems we understand, energy is constantly running down.

But what if you have something outside the system that's putting more energy in than is being bled off? Then, Carl, your premise there that thermodynamics argues against evolution, it's not correct. And I thought about that.

And I thought, well, first, you close systems. The laws of thermodynamics hold as far as we know. And ultimately, even the scientists, the evolutionists believes we're in a closed system. It may be bigger, they may think it's bigger, but.

Ultimately, they're going to say it's closed. But I thought about.

Two things. And I'll tell you where I stole this from A .E. Wilder Smith. I was I benefited from him and Henry Morse. And I already said Dwayne Gish, Marvin Lubenow with fossils and stuff. There are different ones that helped me.

But I remember when A .E. Wilder Smith, one of the things he talked about, he said for the energy from the sun, to be able to compensate for the loss with the thermodynamics, he said, you've got to have two things.

He said, one, you've got to have a metabolic motor that can take energy that to us is destructive. You lay out in the sun very long, you burn, that means your cells are dying. Someone will say, well, that doesn't work for plants.

Photosynthesis works. I said, they've got a metabolic motor that is able to take energy and transfer it into something useful. We don't have that metabolic motor. And the irony is you only find that metabolic motor in systems that are already alive.

Second thing he said you have to have is you have to have a DNA program for growth to follow. So you need a motor to be able to extract the energy that's destructive, convert it into something positive.

Plants have it, we don't. And then secondly, there's got to be a DNA program so that the growth, you know, how's it going to grow? What's it going to do? And he writes in his book, I think it was the Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution.

It's been a while, something close to that. But he says, since you only find those two systems in living systems, how, when they're necessary for life, could life have evolved from non-living material to living material when they have to have both of those systems that are only found in systems that are already living?

And I thought, well, so much for people taking the sun and trying to use that as a bailout. Again, as a pastor, I'm just going, what's common sense? Common sense to me says things are running down. If things are running down, why would I postulate things are always moving up in complexity, particularly when I don't see that.

I don't see that in real life. I put number two, biogenesis. Louis Pasteur, I mean, I don't know what they get in school now. I'm afraid. I'm afraid of education. I mean, I love education. But man, you listen to some of those interviews of people on the streets, pathetic, you know, about what people know and don't know.

They can be experts on theoretical constructs. And yet reading, writing, arithmetic and such, they can't do it. And someday they're going to be the ones operating on our hearts and brains, which is kind of scary to me.

Let's lower the standards for the STEM programs so that everybody can feel good and everybody can get a trophy. Okay, except they used to be a place where people that wanted to learn and run could excel and run.

Now we can't do that because it makes somebody feel bad. So we've all got to be equally mediocre. It's killing this country, as an opinion I have. But at any rate, Louis Pasteur, one of the things we were taught was biogenesis.

And the way I was explained to me was it takes life to make life. If biogenesis is true, and if it takes life to make life, or we don't have examples where non living material evolves into living material, we just don't have examples of that.

Then how do you say with a straight face, you don't believe in science, I do, when you are asking me to believe that non living material somehow evolved into living material? Isn't that a violation of the law of biogenesis?

And what I was told.

In school was, well, Carl, you're right, the law holds.

Except when we're talking about origins. And I said, well, why doesn't it hold with origins as well? I don't understand that. Why did the why does the idea of origins get a free pass and nothing else gets the pass?

No, Carl, don't you understand? You know, we started with nothing, because there's no creator. And somehow from nothing, you know, there was a big explosion. Where did that material come from? Well, maybe there's a dark matter, or what's that?

Well, we can't test it, see it. But it's got to be there, because there's got to be something there. The alternative is that matter is eternal. But if matter is eternal, and we're going to be empirical, you would say if matter's been here forever, then according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would be useless by now.

Because if things are constantly, there's constantly less energy available for useful work, if matter is eternal, and it's worthless by now. So clearly, it had to have a start somewhere, or it would already be in it, there would be it would be worthless by now.

So well, Carl, you just have to accept that, you know, somehow out of this, someone told me about Stephen Hawking saying, well, there was a theoretical point. I don't know if that's true or not. I've not read much of Hawking.

But he's gone now. But someone said to me, well, he was aware there has to be something because trying to argue that nothing produces everything is silly. So he said that there was a mathematical theoretical point.

Well, my naive as a preacher says, well, where'd that theoretical point come from? See, ultimately, you're forced to say if there is no God, there is no creator, if matter is not eternal, if the universe isn't eternal, and Einstein took care of that, there's a lot of relativity.

No, you have time, space and matter, they came, there was a beginning for them, which means they haven't been here forever. Where did it come from? How did it get here? And you want me to assume that it's just there, I won't just assume that.

And again, well, Carl, you assume God's here. So why can't we assume matter's here? Except it's not inconsistent with the second law for me to say God's here and he can create, it's very inconsistent for you to say that matter has been here forever, but it hasn't run down.

So if you want to talk about who's being scientific, who isn't, and then look what that does with the law of biogenesis. Well, yes, it's consistent and holds in issues as far as we know, except origins.

Well, you want me to give you that exception, I won't. And I would say again, as Geisler said, I think I said earlier, it's very, you know, if you want to talk about probability and empiricism to say that, that he said, it's far more probable that everything came from something that everything came from nothing.

And I think that's a great statement. I think he's right. So at any rate, biogenesis, can it be tested? Yes. Can it be observed? Yes. Can it be repeated? Yes. Just like thermodynamics. Which model do laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis support?

I would say it's a lot easier to support a creation model than it is a neo-Darwinistic model of slow gradualism, or the other one punctuated equilibrium. We'll talk about that a little bit. The fossil record.

Fossil Record, Fraudulent Missing Links, and Transitional Forms

That was the one that thoroughly interested me. And I enjoyed reading on that. Because I had been told again, from the time I was little, here's how it works. And we have the proof. Now, there are so many people that have written on this and spoke on this.

And if you've had your who's who's groups talking to you, whatever it's been, this won't be new to you. But I can tell you how disappointing it was for me as a college student. When I look at that monkey man chart, which I had been told is true by someone I dearly trusted, and I had no reason to believe it wasn't true.

I had teachers that supported those views. So I assume again, it's true. And then I find out some of the people in that monkey man chart are fraud. And they were known to be a fraud. Piltdown was a fraud.

Nebraska man was a pig's tooth. Ramapithecus was an ape. Lucy, a knuckle walking ape. That one particularly interested me back in 76. Because I was in the middle of this. Johansson's the one that you know, found Lucy originally, I guess, in Africa.

National Geographic sponsored, you know, his work. Bruce Oxnard, Sully Zuckerman, to my understanding, neither one of them Christians studied Lucy for about 15 years and said, Lucy's nothing but a knuckle walking ape.

Johansson said, No, no, Lucy's that missing link we've been looking for. And son of a gun if National Geographic didn't come out that the missing link has been found. And I'm looking at that and I'm going, why did they support Johansson instead of Zuckerman or Oxnard?

Why? And I think it gets back to worldviews. If your worldview is there is no God, then you better come up with a way. Java man, you know, Solo River, when I read that 26 miles apart, they found the bones that they used to build Java man.

Then I found out, you know, within the last few years, there were full skeletons, same same dig, and they just buried those things. Peking men, everything's lost. In other words, I start looking at the chart, and you start tossing out the ones where you go, okay, doesn't work, doesn't work, doesn't work.

I go, you no longer have this smooth flow of the little common ancestor, they say had to be there to you know, the guy carrying the suitcase, I go, that's still in books, but that's a fraud. And people know it.

Embryological recapitulation, we were taught that, you know, that whole thing about how you can see evolution through the embryos as they're developing. I found out that Ernst Haeckel that was blown up more than 100 years ago.

It was a fraud. He was fraudulent where he did. We still had that in college when I'm taking classes. Why? I found out the horse, dad, my dad introduced me to the horse. You know, where the horse comes together, and you're watching evolving cricket was the guy that I found in college back in the 60s, who exposed that thing as a fraud.

He said they collected those bones over seven different continents. How do you try and with a straight face to say, all of this shows a smooth evolution through the fossil record, when you've collected bones from different continents, and then put them together.

I would suggest what you can have is a very creative artist. And if you want to say my artist is better than your artist, that's fine with me. But to say I'm scientific, and you're not, when you're when you're pulling bones out over a 26 mile, you know, period in the solo river, or you're collecting bones from from horses and putting them together.

And you call that science, I would say no, you've got a worldview, and you're going to make sure you win. And as a student, you never explained any of that to me. You don't tell me about the gaps in the monkey man chart.

You don't tell me about how that horse part thing was put together. You don't tell me about collecting bones. You don't tell me about the extinct pig for my for my Nebraska man that I was so happy. I still have seen pictures that show Nebraska man his wife, his kids, their toys, you know, where they lived.

And I go to find out all that came from a pig, one tooth. There's no way you can pawn that off as being empirical, rational or scientific. You would say it's consistent with somebody's worldview. Fine.

Just tell me that. Here's my worldview. It's atheistic. I do not believe a God created. I've got to explain how we got here. Great. Take your best shot. I am theistic. No problem for me to say I think there's a creator who created we can both try to be consistent.