War of the Worldviews with Frank Sherwin

Okay, and my part, there we go. Okay, so just as our reminder, especially if you're new with us tonight, is that we ask everybody to keep their microphones and cameras off during Frank's presentation, and that that way it's not a distraction to anybody, especially since we're recording and live streaming.

If you have any questions for him during the presentation, if you're here in Zoom or if you're following along on Facebook, you can put your questions into chat and we'll ask him them during the

Q &A time after his presentation. So with that, I am Terri Kammerzell here on behalf of Creation Fellowship Santee.

We're a group of friends bound by our common agreement that the creation account as 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 here on Zoom most Thursday nights since June of 2020. We've been blessed with presentations by pastors, teachers, doctors, prophecy speakers, 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 -E on YouTube. You can also find us at Creation Fellowship on Bitchute and CFS 2020 on Rumble.

Follow our Creation Fellowship Santee Facebook page and sign up for our email list by emailing creationfellowshipsantee at gmail .com

so you don't miss any of our upcoming speakers. Tonight we're blessed to have somebody from one of our founding ministries, our little museum in Santee where we used to meet was actually started by ICR.

And so we have an ICR speaker with us tonight, Frank Sherwin. Frank received his bachelor's degree in biology from Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado in 1978.

He attended graduate school at the University of Northern Colorado where he studied under the late

Gerald D. Schmidt, one of the foremost parasitologists in America. In 1985,

Dr. Sherwin obtained a master's degree in zoology. He published his research in the peer -reviewed

Journal of Parasitology. In 2021, he received an honorary doctorate of science from Pensacola Christian College.

He contributes his scientific expertise to a variety of ICR's publications on creation science and is one of ICR's most sought after speakers.

He is the author of the Ocean Book and Guide to Animals, co -author of the Fossil Record and Earthing Nature's History of Life and the

Human Body, and Intelligent Design, and a contributor to the

Guide to Creation Basics and Creation Basics and Beyond. So with that,

Frank, I'm happy to turn it over to you. Okay. Well, Terri, let me first of all say that all of my years of doing presentations,

I would say yours is one of the top three polished and professional introductions that I ever had.

And believe me, I have never said that before. And so, Terri, my hat is off to you.

You have done an exceptional job in introducing your ministry and yours truly.

So with that, I'd say thank you. And I would have to say also, as the infamous

King Henry VIII of England told his six wives, I won't keep you long.

Thank you. Thank you. So we're gonna go ahead and look at something very important this evening, the

War of the Worldviews. And I think to begin with, we all have a worldview, do we not? We all have a philosophical outlook on life as we look at how we came here, how we came to be, what our purpose in life is, and very importantly, where we're going when we die.

Before I get into that, let me invite you to the ICR Discovery Center here in Dallas. And if you ever find yourself in Northern Texas, you will have no excuse to visit the

Discovery Center. Plan on staying here all day because the Discovery Center has a lot of interactive presentations and exhibits.

You will see a large animatronic dinosaur, a T -Rex, all sorts of other displays and computer enhanced and things that you can use to ask questions regarding the earth and creation science.

And of course, we have a planetarium as well. So you can view the planetarium, the various shows that we have, and we have a coveted

Ice Age Theater. And there are two presentations in the Ice Age Theater.

And we as creationists believe that we have the secular evolutionary community beat when it comes to the

Ice Age. Ice Age occurred only thousands of years ago. It occurred right after the

Genesis Flood, which is approximately 4 ,500 years ago. And so you can check out the rest of that at our

ICR Discovery Center. When you come to visit, you go ahead and let me know and we'll go out to lunch.

You pay and I'll pray. I think that'll work out just right.

Okay, well, to use a foundational verse and kind of set things in order, as it were, when it comes to this war of the worldviews,

Psalm 11 says, if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?

And certainly that is true in this very volatile, important, critical issue called the war of the worldviews that pits evolutionary naturalism against biblical

Christianity. Well, the church is in decline. Just to give you some more bad news, what we find is

Americans worship in houses of worship, membership in houses of worship continued to decline last year, dropping below 50 % for the first time in Gallup's 80 -year trend.

And there's no reason to believe that that is the lowest it's ever been in the history of the

United States. Just last year, 47 % of Americans said they belong to a church, synagogue, or mosque, down from 50 % in just 2018 and 70 % in 1999.

And so we find that things are declining spiritually, at least when it comes to organized worship in this country in a hurry.

Well, why Americans nuns, and maybe you've heard that phrase before, as it describes the latest generation, as they literally and figuratively turn their back on the church and God.

Why do they leave religion behind? Well, Lipka, a researcher, said

August of 2016, this includes many respondents who mentioned science as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings.

A survey was taken by Dr. Lipka, and he found these were the two most prominent reasons that the young people gave as they said no to Christ and no to church.

First, they said, learning about evolution when I went away to college. Well, that's kind of interesting because when

I went away to secular college in Gunnison, Colorado, my faith was strengthened as I studied the biological sciences as an undergraduate.

The second reason was lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator.

Well, once again, as we study God's living creation and the biological sciences, I have to agree with what the apostle said in Romans chapter one and verse 20, where Paul said that God's creation, even though it's been corrupted by sin,

God's creation is not only seen, but the apostle Paul adds an extra word. He says that God's creation is clearly seen.

God's creation is clearly seen. And so in reference to what Paul says in Romans 1 .20,

it kind of negates what these two excuses were as these young people gave for their reason of leaving the church.

1 Peter 3 .15 is one of my favorite verses that I taught our four children as they were growing up in Pensacola, and then also right there in San Diego.

The apostle Peter said in chapter three, but first, but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks of you, a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and with fear.

Now, the apostle Peter is saying to have this apologetic, the word there is an apologia that says knowing why you should believe what you believe.

And so when you talk to many Christians today and students and so forth, they might say, well, yeah, okay, I believe in creation, but very few know why they believe in creation and what they believe.

And so this is very important issue of the war of the worldviews that we find ourselves embroiled in today in the 21st century.

I always like to share John 14, six, where it says, Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life.

And no one comes to the father except by me. And so what we see is the Lord Jesus Christ is saying he is the only way, he is the way, he is the truth and he is alive and that no one comes to God except through Jesus Christ.

John 14, six, a very important verse when we are sharing our faith with others.

So what is science? This is a question that people ask a lot and sometimes the critics of creation like to say, well, those

ICR speakers never even define what science is. So let me put that to rest right now this evening.

Science is a systematic study of phenomena based on experimental investigation, including that which can be observed and tested and repeated.

So the big question this evening is, are creationists opposed to science?

Or as many, many critics of creation say, creationists are anti -science.

Well, folks, that's ridiculous. We embrace science, we love science at ICR. And the scientists involved in ICR, both in the life sciences, such as yours truly, and the physical sciences like geology and physics, we love science very much.

Now we have a real issue with this strange philosophy that says that people came from bacteria.

That is not science, that's philosophy. And as you'll see in the presentation this evening, we try and make a real clear distinction between where philosophy leaves off and true empirical science begins.

Now, empirical science is right there on the screen, what we can observe and test and repeat.

Who would be opposed to that? Most certainly not the creation scientists.

We believe that in the beginning, God, and that God was there, and God is the creator of science.

And so when we do science, we are attempting to think God's thoughts after him.

And we are very blessed by the research that we do at, where else?

The Institute for Creation Research. So that's what we do. And so we feel at ICR, and again, we love science, that science and the

Bible, science and the scripture go together like butter and bread. Science and the

Bible are inextricably linked, just like politics and corruption.

You just can't, well, you can't separate them. And so what is empirical science?

That which can be observed and tested and repeated. We love it. So as one atheist said, he's not an atheist anymore because he's dead, but Linus Pauling, a two -time

Nobel Prize winner, said, science is the search for truth. Well, certainly we agree with that.

Science is the search for truth. Do you remember how I read John 14, six, just a few minutes ago? Jesus saith unto him,

I am the way and the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except by me.

We attempt to think God's thoughts after him. And so we are attempting to describe and define and discover truth.

And that's what science is all about, the search for truth, the effort to understand the world. And so how much more satisfying can it be to understand that Jesus is the creator of all things?

He said he is the truth. And so as a scientist, I'm investigating, in other words, thinking

God's thoughts after him. It turns out that scientific research, at least by the creation scientists, is a form of worship.

The investigation of God's living creation is a form of worship, even though the creation has been corrupted by sin.

We understand that. God cursed the earth, didn't he? He cursed the earth with weeds and thorns and thistles.

My particular field is that of parasites. I'm a parasitologist, an invertebrate zoologist.

And so I try to think God's thoughts after him as I investigate what parasites might have been prior to the fall of our first parents,

Adam and Eve. Well, that gets into a field called theoretical science. Can we do theoretical science?

Absolutely. The evolutionist does theoretical science all the time. Certainly that is true for the creationist as well.

And so we conduct, we do theoretical science. In my field, what were parasites prior to the fall?

And so that's the work, for example, that I do. So science is a search for truth that is eminently true and very satisfying, especially for the creation scientist who sees

Jesus as the creator. So with that in mind, empirical science, that in which we can observe and test and repeat, let's look at this quote on the screen right here.

At 13 .8 billion years ago, our entire observable universe was the size of a peach and had the temperature of over a trillion degrees.

Now, the question in the evening is, as we had talked about empirical science, that which can be observed and tested and repeated, is this statement that we see by Paul Sutter just a few years ago, is this scientific?

And the answer is, of course not. Of course not. This was a one -time event that occurred in the unobserved past.

Let me repeat that. This was a one -time event that occurred in the unobserved past.

And so this is not empirically verifiable. And so we would have to ask this following question as we discuss the

War of the World Views. How does Paul Sutter know that? How does he know that?

Or is that part of his philosophy? Now, right away, the atheist who's listening, perhaps, might say something like this.

Well, sure, when you're just a creationist, you believe that in the beginning God created, that was a one -time event that occurred in the unobserved past.

And you know what? The atheist is true. But we have a more, ours is a more logical basis, a foundation, because we have faith in God, someone who was there when, in the beginning.

The atheist has faith in something that can never be documented or verified. Nobody was there for the atheist to see what happened 13 .8

billion years ago. But ours is a more reasonable faith because our faith is based on one who was there, as I say, in the beginning.

The evolutionist has a faith, but it's a faith in nobody and nothing. He or she just has a faith that that event happened impossibly long ago.

So we would say, yes, this is a faith versus a faith issue, but ours is a more reasonable faith because we have faith in one who was there in the beginning.

So we would maintain at ICR that science without debate is propaganda.

I thoroughly believe that. Science without debate is propaganda. And I have a quote from an individual here, and you see it there on the screen.

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

Do you believe that? I certainly believe that. That is absolutely true. However, the person who said this is kind of amazing, kind of surprising.

And, well, it may surprise you to find out who it is that said that a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts.

Who said this? Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin said that in his infamous book,

The Origin of Species, published in 1859. I was on Mood Dobs five years ago, drove to downtown

San Diego, got to the studio. A guy put a mic on my lapel and he said, 3, 2, 1, the camera light came on and I was on Mood Dobs.

And so this is one of the quotes that I shared as opposed to the evolutionary atheist, a lady who was vehemently opposed to creation science.

But, hey, this says it all right here in this quote. And this is especially true when it comes to America's taxpayer paid public schools.

And so I think as an official US taxpayer that a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and the arguments on both sides of each question.

And then American taxpayer paid public schools, that is not observed.

Well, we believe at ICR that the history book of the universe is the Bible. You heard me say a few minutes ago, the

Bible written by someone who was there in the beginning. Creation was a one -time event that nobody saw happen except with the creator that he faithfully recorded what happened in the beginning.

So the real issue is God's word versus man's word. This is the issue of the war of the world views as we talk about it today.

The loss of biblical authority is the root of the decline of Christian America. If you remember those statistics that we looked at a few minutes ago at the beginning of the presentation, it's because of the loss of biblical authority.

More and more people are saying no to scripture, no to what happened in the past according to one who was there and faithfully recorded what happened.

Well, evolutionists build their worldview on Darwin. Published in 1859, this book turned the

Western world upside down with what it said. Ironically, Darwin never addressed the origin of the species in his book entitled,

The Origin of the Species. But his book was very popular both in his day in 1859 and also in the 21st century, why?

Well, it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the philosophical conviction.

Darwin's book is popular today as well as when he published it because it explains creation without a creator.

It explains creation without a creator. That's why Darwin's book is so popular.

It has nothing to do with science. So we must build our worldview on the

Bible, one who was there when? In the beginning. And so we look to the

Bible for our origin and also for our destiny. Hebrews chapter 11 says, but without faith, it's impossible to please him, meaning

God, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I love that verse. Yes, it takes faith to believe that in the beginning God created, but we as people of faith, we who call upon Jesus as our savior, we have a walk of faith.

And if you go to gospel preaching church, a Bible preaching church, the pastor will teach that the

Christian life is a walk of faith or should be a walk of faith with every step that we take.

So when the evolutionist accused the creationist as exercising faith, we have to raise our hand and say, guilty as charged.

Because it says right here in Hebrews chapter 11, but without faith, it's impossible to please him.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I wanna please my Lord. And so I will exercise faith in a day by day, moment by moment walk.

Well, Genesis is the history book of the universe. And some people think Genesis is just a story, but all 50 chapters are written in the historical narrative

Hebrew. There's absolutely no break between Genesis chapter 11 and Genesis chapter 12.

They are seamless from Genesis chapter one all the way through to Genesis chapter 50 written in the historical narrative

Hebrew. God wants us to understand and believe his word literally from the very first verse.

And so Genesis is not just a story. It was written by one who was there in the beginning.

And creation science begins with Genesis chapter one. As a scientist this evening,

I would have to say that the most profound scientific statement that has ever been made that I ever read is

Genesis chapter one and verse one. Folks, when you talk to a cosmologist, even if they are the most secular and atheist, they would have to agree that this universe is composed of three parts or three entities.

That is the universe is composed of time and space and matter. Maybe you've heard somebody say, we live in a time space matter universe.

And that's true. Now let's look at Genesis chapter one and verse one. In the beginning, that's time.

God created the heavens, that's space, and the earth, that's matter.

So in the very first verse of the very first chapter of the book of books, we read

God who has always existed, spoke into existence the time, space, matter, universe in the very first verse.

I would suggest this evening that no other religious writing in the world begins like the Bible. Not that I'm being haughty or arrogant.

I just have to say what is very obvious, that of all the religious writings in the world today, the

Bible stands unique and apart as starting like no other religious writing with God who was there when, in the beginning.

Other religious writings begin with fire, wind, water, earth, or something like that, but not the

Bible. And God speaks into existence, the very fabric of this entire universe.

By the way, do we live in a universe or a multiverse? Well, there's a little hesitation there.

We live in a universe, right? What does a prefix uni mean? That's right, one, one.

When I was a little kid, I tried to pull a wheelie on a unicycle. It didn't go well.

And so we find time, space, and matter, three in a universe. That's three in one.

So I think that's kind of interesting, isn't it? Three in one. Well, the created cosmos is certainly something that we look up and just are absolutely struck and smitten by.

As the Psalmist said in Psalm 19, one, the heavens declare the glory of God.

And certainly that's true. When it comes to the origin of the universe, there's only three options.

One is that it always existed. That isn't true because of the law of thermodynamics.

Even the most outspoken atheist has to agree that this universe is headed for a heat death and so could not have always existed.

Number two, it suddenly appeared from nothing. And number three, it was created supernaturally.

Well, what do you suppose that the secular evolutionary community would go with? Well, certainly they wouldn't say that it always existed because of the second law of thermodynamics.

And they cannot because of their worldview that says no God, they are atheists, so they can't go with number three.

Therefore, let me read to you a quote from Alan Guth, G -U -T -H. He's the wonder kid of the expanding universe idea.

Alan Guth teaches at MIT. And here is what Alan Guth said along with one of his co -authors back in the 1980s in Scientific American Magazine.

Quote, it is then tempting to go one step further and speculate, there's a good scientific word, and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

And so how scientific is that? And I mean that in all seriousness because as a creation scientist,

I am regularly accused of being anti -science, not only unscientific, but positively anti -science.

But how scientific is this statement by Alan Guth? Tempting to go one step further and speculate the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

Question, is there a scientific investigation and experiment that we might conduct and do to show how you can get something from nothing?

And of course there isn't. To believe everything came from nothing requires what? That's right, it requires faith.

It takes faith to believe that in the beginning, God created, doesn't it? That's right, it does.

But ours is a more reasonable faith because we have faith in one who is there in the beginning.

So here, Guth and Steinhardt say the entire universe evolved from literally nothing and there is no scientific experiment that can validate such a fantastical claim.

So the idea that the universe had a distinct beginning and is definitely winding down today is a serious philosophical concern for the secular cosmologists.

Again, the idea that the universe had a distinct beginning and is definitely winding down today is a serious philosophical concern for the secular cosmologists.

Well, what about some biblical evidences for a young earth? I'm glad you asked.

Luke chapter one in verse 70, it says here, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been when blessed, since the world began.

Notice according to the priest Zacharias here in Luke chapter one, God has been speaking through his prophets ever since the world began, not beginning billions of years after it began.

In his temple sermon, the apostle Peter preached that God had promised someday to restore all things, look, which

God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

So in two different places in the New Testament, we find that God is telling us very, very clearly that the universe and God's prophets were created virtually at the same time.

Now, Paul says in Corinthians that God is not the author of confusion, and he isn't. If God wanted us to understand there are millions, well, billions of years between the origin of the universe and the appearance of God's prophets billions of years later, then there are words and phrases in the original language that would make that clear.

And since God is not the author of confusion, he would have included those words and phrases that would separate the creation of the universe and the creation of God's prophets.

At two times, he did not. He made it very clear, the creation of the world and God's prophets were at virtually the same time.

Let's look at the individual who was stuck on a desert island. He's the only survivor of a shipwreck.

He got on shore, he built a little lean -to hunt and started to wait for his rescue.

One morning, he was beachcombing, going along the shore, and he came upon the captain's

Bible of the ship that went down just weeks earlier. He took the Bible, dried it off, and faithfully read it from Genesis to the maps.

Week after week, month after month, he read it and continued to read it and continued to read it as he waited for his rescue.

Here's the question. As he finished the last chapter of the book of Revelation and closed the

Bible, would he ever say something like this? Wow, the earth must be 4 .6

billion years old. No, of course not. He would never say that because nowhere in the

Bible does it speak of millions of years. As a matter of fact, as this individual would read the

Bible, he would come away with the idea that the earth is only thousands of years old based on what he would read, especially in the creation account in the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings.

If God wanted us to understand that this universe and this planet is billions of years old, he certainly would have told us.

The secular scientist lectures the theologians way too often, unfortunately, and the secular scientist says something like this.

The Bible is not true. The earth is millions of years old. I'm a scientist, believe me.

Unfortunately, 99 .9 % of the time, the theologian says, well, I have to add what he says to the

Bible. He must know what he's talking about. And this is really sad because the compelling case for an old age simply is not there.

The earth does not show great ages and there's no proof the earth is 4 .6

billion years old. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. But unfortunately, when we look at God's infallible word and man's fallible word, why do people change the infallible one when they want them to agree?

And that is what happens over and over again. The Bible has changed to fit man's viewpoint when just the opposite should be true.

And there's example after example. Even after I joined ICR in 1996, I've seen all sorts of examples of where if the

Christian would simply have waited for the scientific community to catch up, they would never have compromised with the evolutionary community in the first place.

There's all sorts of examples of that right here in Genesis chapter one, where we read in verse two, and the earth was without form and void and darkness is upon the face of the deep and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And yet the evolutionary community said over and over again for well over a century and a half, that this planet began as a red hot ball of molten rock, sterile molten rock.

But the Bible states our planet began cool and covered with water, as opposed to the secular evolutionary model stating that it was molten rock with no water.

So the question should be asked, who are we going to believe? What God told us in Genesis chapter one and verse two, or the evolutionary naturalist who doesn't believe the

Bible at all and who was not there in the beginning? Well, if they'd only waited, guess what?

In January of 2018, this article came out by somebody named Boyle. And he said, not until a particularly violent asteroid barrage ending some 3 .8

billion years ago, could life have evolved. But this story, and it's certainly just a story, he says, but this story is increasingly under fire.

Then he said this, many geologists now think earth may have been tepid and watery from when?

From the outset. From the outset, just exactly what it says in Genesis chapter one and verse two, that the spirit of God moved across the face of the water.

Not only that, but a few years later, way back in March of the year 2021, the

American Geophysical Union, which is hardly a hotbed of creationism, said, and I quote, a vast global ocean,

I can't say that without chuckling, a vast global ocean may have covered early earth.

Now back 50 years ago, 60 years ago, when I was in school, I was taught over and over again that the

Bible is wrong and that the Genesis flood is a fairy tale. The Genesis flood that states this entire planet was covered in water in the past.

Now in March of the year 2021, the American Geophysical Union is saying this planet was covered with water completely in the past.

Just exactly what the Bible says. Now, I understand that the

American Geophysical Union is not talking about the Genesis flood. I understand that.

But they are talking about the fact that they're suggesting, excuse me, they're suggesting that this planet was covered completely with water in the past.

That just happens to be what the Bible teaches in Genesis chapter six through Genesis chapter eight.

And so again, if only many, many Christians would have waited, waited for the secular evolutionary community to catch up with what the

Bible has always taught. And here again is a perfect example. Well, we believe in six literal 24 hour days of creation,

God was there in the beginning. He made it very, very clear that they were six literal 24 hour days of creation.

For example, he uses the simple most straightforward word for a day in the Hebrew lexicon.

And that is the Hebrew word yom, Y -O -M, which 98 % of the time class means a literal 24 hour day.

Since God is not the author of confusion, as Paul says in Corinthians, God is telling us using the simplest, most straightforward word for a day that he could possibly use.

The Hebrew word yom, which means a day. But not only that, but he says the evening and the morning were the first day, the second day, the evening and the morning, the third day and the fourth day, the evening and the morning.

What does that imply? That implies a rotation of this planet one time on its axis.

That is the astronomical measurement for a day. So God is telling us theologically, the

Hebrew word yom. He's also telling us astronomically that it was a 24 hour day, sunrise and sunset at 24 hour period of time that can be validated and verified using astronomy.

And then finally, he uses a week. Now we can astronomically validate the day, can't we?

Rotation of this planet one time on its axis. We can astronomically verify a month, which is the phases of the moon.

We can astronomically verify a year. It takes 365 days for this planet to make one journey in orbit around the sun.

But there's no astronomical verification for a week. A week was

God given right here in the beginning. God worked six days and rested on the seventh.

In other words, he's so powerful, he could have created just like that, but he took six days and rested on the seventh.

Why? Well, basically he's telling us, I worked six days and rest on the seventh so that we might work six days and rest on the seventh.

So here's three reasons why we believe that it was six literal 24 hour days of creation.

What about people? Where do people fit in on the Genesis account of creation? Well, human evolution is taught as a fact in taxpayer paid public schools.

But evolutionists don't know how, they don't know when, what or where when it comes to human evolution.

I have it in quotation marks there because human evolution is an oxymoron. The two do not belong together, just like, well, airline food, that's an oxymoron.

Jumbo shrimp, that's an oxymoron. Microsoft works, that's an oxymoron, okay?

And so is human evolution. Look at this quote from 2017, just a few years ago, but I agree with it 100%.

This is from New Scientist Magazine, which is an atheistic publication, August of 2017.

Quote, over the past 15 years, almost every part of our story, every assumption about who our ancestors were and where we came from has been called into question.

End quote. I couldn't agree more. This is the status of quote unquote human evolution in the 21st century.

But as the infomercial says, wait, there's more. Look at this. This comes from the

American Museum of Natural History way back in the year 2021. When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it's just a big mess.

There's a good scientific word, mess. There's no consensus whatsoever according to this one individual who is a died in the world,

USDA inspected evolutionist. So this is a status of human evolution as of this year.

This year, it's just a big mess. What's so tragic is that human evolution is taught as a fact in American taxpayer paid public schools.

And there's nothing that we know about human evolution that's true. In other words, multiple explanations for human origins are all held to be true, but many are incompatible and contradictory.

They simply all cannot be true. Well, there are various kinds of people, aren't there?

And we call them people groups. But people have always been, that's right. People have always been people.

So there is horizontal variation within the people groups. You have the darkest Nigerian, the lightest skin

Norwegian, people have always been people. And plants have always been plants.

For example, there's approximately 13 ,000 identifiable varieties of roses throughout the world.

What are they? They're all 100 % roses. So God created the rose to have a very plastic genome.

The word genome simply means the entire genetic complement within the chromosomes of the rose there.

So there's a lot of plasticity, but roses have always been roses. They don't turn into something else like mustard plants or something like that.

And people have always been people. So although there is horizontal variation, there's no vertical evolution.

Some call vertical evolution, macro evolution. Macro meaning what? Yeah, meaning big.

And so we see no examples of real vertical or macro evolution.

We don't see it. You know why we don't see it? First and foremost, it's because the

Bible says in Genesis chapter one, that God created after their, that's right, after their time.

How many times do we see in Genesis chapter one, the phrase after their time?

Anybody? That is correct, 10 times. So 10 times

God told us in the first chapter of Genesis that he created after their time.

Now, what does that mean? Why am I making a big deal about that? God certainly did because he told us 10 times.

Why? Because God is telling us that he did not use evolution. You ever think about that?

If he created after their kind and he emphasized that over and over again, he's saying in effect,

I did not use evolution. He created after their time. Well, this is one of the most exciting discoveries that have been made very recently.

It has to do the very first discovery of still soft and flexible dinosaur nerve, a nerve fragment that's found in a triceratops occipital condyle, part of the skeletal anatomy of the triceratops.

Mark Armitage, a good friend of mine, a fellow parapsychologist, has found in triceratops tissue a flexible and soft dinosaur nerve.

And this is a nerve too. Guess when this was found? Way back in the year of 2020,

I think is when this slide was made. Do they look similar? They certainly do. Nerves have always been nerves.

And so this is very exciting. We used to get excited 20 plus years ago about finding general soft dinosaur tissue.

The glue that holds our skin and our muscles and bones together is called collagen.

It's the glue that holds our body together. Finding soft collagen was fascinating, but now we're getting down to the nitty gritty and we're finding nerve tissue.

How can nerve tissue in a dinosaur sample last for well over 66 million years?

This might be 125 million years old according to evolutionary dating.

And I don't believe in those inflated dates for a second, no pun intended.

And so we believe that this is certainly a tissue that has survived the Genesis flood approximately 4 ,500 years ago.

But this is amazing. Amazing not only that it's survived 4 ,500 years, but it says no to 125 million years that never existed.

So this is very, very exciting discovery. Well, it gets even better because recently paleontologists have found fossilized dinosaur cartilage and within the cartilage, our cartilage cells themselves, which in the nucleus of the cartilage cells called the chondrocytes, they have found, you guessed it,

DNA, dinosaur DNA. Now, I'm not saying today that Jurassic Park is right around the corner, far from it.

We're never gonna have dinosaurs running around there. The DNA molecule is pretty delicate.

Evidently, we are still finding dinosaur, we are now finding dinosaur

DNA. 125 million year old dinosaur cell has a nucleus so well preserved that it retains original biomolecules and threads of chromatin.

Well, chromatin is a tightly packed DNA molecules. And really what chromatin is, is the

DNA that wraps around protein spheres called histones. And the histones are made of four parts, but they're made of protein.

And the creator has designed this chromatin to have the histones, the protein molecules with DNA wrapping around it, like if you took a tennis ball and took a ribbon and wrap the ribbon around a tennis ball.

That's kind of the idea it is. The results must provide preliminary data suggesting that remnants of original dinosaur

DNA and A may still be preserved. This gets it right out of the park.

You're just not going to have dinosaur DNA lasting for 125 million years.

Occam's razor, the simplest, most straightforward explanation is usually the best.

In this case, Occam's razor is what we're going with.

The simplest, most straightforward explanation is that this tissue is not 125 million years old.

It couldn't be. You wouldn't have the DNA lasting that long. Well, more evidence for creation is the

DNA molecule itself. We've just looked at the last slide. DNA means a message.

Show me a message that did not come from the mind, okay? The DNA is the most sophisticated information storage and retrieval system in the known universe.

And it is perfused in saltwater. That's where this sophisticated information storage and retrieval system resides, is in a soupy saltwater solution.

That is your cells. And it is just absolutely amazing biomolecule full of information.

How did you get the information? By time and chance and natural processes or by plan and purpose and special creation.

Again, we would have to say as creationists, show me a message that did not come from the mind.

And there's nothing simple about this DNA molecule. So the evolution of life itself, life from non -life,

I like to say the evolutionists maintain that inorganic non -life through time and chance became organic, that is carbon -based life.

But the evolution of life is not clearly seen, not at all. This is a famous quote and I had no idea who said it, but I like to repeat it.

Evolution is a faith, glass. Evolution is a faith that unknown chemicals came together in an unknown way and an unknown place and an unknown time using an unknown process to produce life.

And that's what evolution of life is today. Everything about the evolution of life from non -life is, that's right, that's right, unknown.

What's the great irony? What's the great tragedy about this? Is this why evolution is taught as a fact in American taxpayer paid public schools?

Because everything about the evolution of life is unknown, unknown. And as we say in Texas, I'm against it.

I'm against using my hard -earned tax dollars to teach the next generation that they came from a fish.

Okay, I think that as well, as Charles Darwin said in 1859, that we should have a more balanced approach, don't you?

I certainly believe that. Well, this goes way back to the year 2021,

October 1st of the year 2021. Well, anyway, this is the solar system's mysterious magnetic fields.

Most of our neighboring planets have magnetic fields, but scientists do not fully understand how they arise.

Now, this is an amazing admission made by a secular evolutionary cosmologist who says in the pages of Scientific American, which is vehemently anti -creation, used to be a creation publication.

Now it has gone completely the opposite direction, but notice this. They're saying most of the neighboring planets have magnetic fields, but scientists do not fully understand how they arise.

They don't know how they arose. Well, then if science does not understand how they arose, how can we know the magnetic fields operated for four and a half billion years?

I think that's a good question to ask. Here's a question for the audience out there.

What or how many planets in our solar system has tectonic activity, tectonic plates?

That's right, Earth and no other planet. As far as we can tell,

Earth is the only planet that has tectonic activity, tectonic plates and subduction of things such as that.

And as it turns out, our existence, our survivability on this planet is due to tectonic activity in this process of subduction.

It only happens here on Earth, not on any other planet in the solar system.

Well, all of a sudden now we're seeing this chart here because what we've been looking at for the past 35, 40 minutes are the opening chapters of Genesis.

And now here we have Genesis chapter five, the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ from Adam.

Now, why is that important? If you remember, I said over a half an hour ago that the most contentious chapters in the

Bible are the first 11 chapters of Genesis. That's where so many Christians wanna compromise and say, well, maybe it's just rhetorical, maybe it's theoretical, maybe it's a poetical type of a way of interpreting

Genesis, a metaphor. But God has not left that open to us at all.

Genesis one through 11 is to believe just as much as Genesis chapter 12 through 50. So what did

God do? God put the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ directly in the center of those hotly contested first 11 chapters of Genesis.

This is Genesis chapter five, the genealogy of the savior, the creator of the universe.

And it takes us from Adam, our first parents, Adam and Eve, all the way to the

Lord Jesus Christ. And if the evolutionary naturalist or if the

Christian who chooses not to believe in Genesis one through 11 as a literal fact, then they would have to say that it is a metaphor, that Jesus Christ sprang ultimately from a metaphor called

Adam, the first Adam, that God simply has not left us with that interpretation.

God spoke very, very clearly in Genesis chapter five, the genealogy, that it was a literal blood and flesh individual by the name of Adam created by God.

And there in Genesis chapter two, when Adam and Eve were created and God expects us to believe that not from a metaphor.

Well, again, I think you would see as we look through this and as we draw to a close here this evening, the

Christians need to identify where science leads off and philosophy begins.

Science at which we can observe and test and repeat versus philosophy that says an event occurred billions of years ago in the unobserved past.

For example, an atheist is someone who believes the scientifically strange that nothing created everything.

There's no scientific research and investigation that we can do. We cannot go into a scientific lab, stainless steel lab and show how something comes from nothing.

That takes faith. We need faith also as Christians, but we have faith in someone who was there when?

In the beginning, in the beginning. The evolutionist doesn't believe in God, therefore they must believe that everything came from nothing, no created, no designer.

So I conclude by saying, learn to ask probing and critical questions.

Be nice about it, be diplomatic about it. Don't be in your face, just be polite and diplomatic, but ask those probing and critical questions.

Know what science is, for example, empirical science, observable, testable, repeatable.

Know what theoretical science is and know the difference between good science and philosophical presupposition as we engage diplomatically in this war of the world views.

Okay, well, that's all that I have here this evening. I guess we can go ahead and open up for questions now.

Yes, and so far I don't really see any in the chat, but people can put them in the chat or they could go ahead and unmute themselves if they'd like to ask a question on the air.

I did get a comment from Robin. And she says that she didn't know that about the tectonic plates, that earth is the only planet with them.

So that was interesting to her. How did I miss that? And you were funny.

I laughed at the oxymoron stuff. Good, that's true. I'm trying to get my wife to laugh at some of these and no good so far, but.

And also I think we could do a Jurassic Park if we have the DNA, couldn't we?

Well, yeah, we do have the DNA, but it gets a whole lot more complex than that because DNA, although it has survived, now we see that it's survived from the so -called dinosaur age.

The molecule is very delicate. In biology, we call it friable. Friable doesn't mean to actually fry with a frying pan, but meaning it's very delicate and easily broken.

And so we might be able to get some genes out of that DNA, genes that might code for a polypeptide or a protein.

But as far as taking a viable cell and activating all of the genes in there and then putting it in what we call a secondary old site and then implanting that in some reptile, we don't have the technology for that.

We probably wouldn't have the technology to do that for about the next, I'd say about two centuries. I don't know.

I've been watching what we're capable of. Well, nobody would be more surprised than me.

And we are capable of quite a bit, but boy, what I've studied as a graduate student in embryology, that'd be quite a trick.

And then Terry, Jeff has a question. Yeah, actually we have a couple of questions now. So from Jeff, Jeff says that the definition you gave for science was the clearest and most succinct that he's heard.

He'd like you to repeat it. Well, thank you, Jeff. Yeah, empirical science is that which we can observe and test and repeat.

Now, and the part of empirical science is observation. That's about 70%, and that's not an exaggeration.

A vast, vast amount of empirical science is simply sitting down and observing an event, observing it, taking notes, making observational interpretations and so forth, and then repeating it and testing it.

Also, I would say that falsifiability is part and parcel of empirical science as well.

Is it falsifiable? So all of that is, you know, we embrace empirical science at ICR.

Every creationist should embrace empirical science. This is why I make a distinction,

Jeff, between, for example, sightings of dinosaurs that we read about in medieval literature,

St. George and the dragon and things like that, although that is very compelling.

And in finding the rundels, which are parts of the wall of a temple that was found in the

Far East in the 1970s, that had, in one of the rundels there, it had something that looked very like a stegosaurus.

That's very interesting evidence, but it's not scientific evidence. It's what we call, Jeff, legal historical evidence.

Let me give an example. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in Forth Theater. We understand that, but we cannot validate that scientifically by observation, testing, and repeating.

So how do we know Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in Forth Theater? Well, it was by what we call legal historical evidence, that is, eyewitness accounts, historical narratives, and other processes that leads us to conclude that, yeah,

Lincoln was assassinated in Forth Theater. It has nothing to do with science. So when I talk about dinosaurs, especially about medieval sightings and all that and what it says in the

Bible, I'm very careful to make a distinction between empirical science and legal historical evidence.

Okay, that's a great explanation. Justin, thank you for your presentation.

And then he'd like to know, what is ICR's view on the speed of light issue? That's a great question,

Justin. Terry, do we have any other questions? No. I think, yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks.

Yeah, the speed of light issue is as big a question for the evolutionists as it is for the creationists.

And so for my listeners out there, I want to emphasize that the speed of light issue is something that is a problem for evolution as well.

What we want to do is to, and that's why they call us the Institute for Creation Research, is investigate this.

Now, Jason Lyle was talking about just about an hour ago when I first signed on here. Jason has a very interesting idea called the one -way speed of light.

And I'm not sure if I completely understand it. I have to review it again. But I think

Jason was onto something there. Dr. Russ Humphreys, and by the way, Jason Lyle is no pushover.

He made some very profound discoveries regarding the nature of the sun.

And that's how he got his PhD. Jason Lyle, a friend of mine, discovered some things about the sun that have never been known before by science.

And he got it published. And he went to that little Bible college back, well, in the West called University of Colorado, Boulder.

Okay, so it's not like he went to some little Bible college. As I like to say,

Jason Lyle is no pushover. And so what Jason has done is some very, I think, groundbreaking work in this area.

And so it has to do with the, I don't want to get into it because I'm just an invertebrate.

Well, the simple way on it is just that we can only measure the round trip speed of light because everything we have in the way of gauging speed requires us using the light to send that information out to the far point.

So we can't synchronize watches with someplace out there. And therefore we can't get a here to there speed.

We can only get a round trip speed. Right, and that's it. And if I, I don't know if I'm gonna pronounce this correctly but I believe it's the anisotropic synchrony convention.

Very good, anisotropic, yeah. And so there are several explanations

Justin, out there in the making. And we're closing out, probably not in my generation but the speed of light is very interesting.

By the way, Einstein said we will never achieve the speed of light. We can get up to about 99 .999

% of the speed of light but we'll never be able to go the speed of light.

That's where Star Trek breaks down. And in fact, just to add onto that,

Dr. Lyle, he's a friend of ours also. He's gonna be coming at the beginning of December to talk to us, to give us his presentation on the

Bethlehem Star. But he's been on tour on the East Coast this weekend. I was watching one of his presentations.

He was talking about this and he credits, he has a book, The Physics of Einstein. And he says like his idea about the speed of light being round trip that's not something new to him.

That's something that Einstein actually came up with and he just has been trying to explain it better.

Well, good for Jason. I wish him all the best in that effort there. He has more degrees on the thermometer.

Wait, we need to take a step back to Star Trek and you mean Star Trek's not real?

Correct. Yeah, I would say that Star Trek is not real.

I'm sorry, Mr. Worf. But William Shatner really has traveled in space.

Yeah, that's it. And so he went where no one has gone, no, no man has gone before.

Depending on what New York. To get Bill Shatner to cry is really something.

And so it took a trip into space before he started blubbering. And I mean that in good nature because it was 90 years old.

He should be in a rocking chair someplace. Instead he's blasting off into space there.

So I do, my hat is off to him and I salute him for a job well done.

Do you think the flat earthers are going to think Captain Kirk is lying when he says the earth is round?

Yeah. If they round out their viewpoints. Oh, very good, very good. One of the things that I have to say without losing my temper and I have to remember that I'm a representative of the

United States Navy of ICR. I have now had supper over Colonel Jeff Williams' house not once, but three times.

Jeff Williams is a strong believer in the Lord Jesus. He has been at the International Space Station many times and has taken thousands of pictures from the

International Space Station. Again, Colonel Williams' walk with the Lord is sincere and genuine.

And having supper at his house not once, but three times, I know him personally.

Now, in order for the flat earth view to be correct that means Colonel Jeff Williams, my friend has been lying through his teeth and that is not true.

And that makes me a little bit upset. Colonel Williams is a very godly individual. He wouldn't lie to me.

He has been out there in space. He didn't just go up 45 feet and kind of hang around or whatever.

Oh, no, I've met him twice at the Grecian Museum. Yeah, and I have his picture book but we had two people come and talk on the flat earth and they are just, you know, it's some goofy thing in that, you know,

NASA's lying and then, you know, the astronauts are lying. And so I always bring up Colonel Jeff, you know and they're like, well, he's bought and paid for too.

You know, they're all are, they just don't wanna believe. Yeah, they don't. And I think, sorry to harp on or to keep mentioning

Dr. Lyle, but in that presentation I listened to this week he talked about the fact that some of the astronauts have become

Christians based on their experience of going out to space and seeing firsthand from that perspective, the handiwork of God.

Whereas on the flip side, the comments that William Shatner made, you know

Dan Lietha is also a friend of ours and he's a cartoonist and now he's with Reasons for Hope and he has a cartoon series,

Truth Jabs. And this week he made a cartoon of William Shatner and his response to going out in space.

And he jabbed him with a little truth. It's unfortunately that William Shatner is what

I understand as an atheist but that's too bad, you know, but what can

I say? Frank, speaking of the jab, have you looked into the science behind the vaccination for COVID?

Yeah, that gets into quite an issue that I'm not really prepared to go into this evening.

Let me tell you that. Well, we can, oh, go ahead. If you've got something you wanna say, go ahead. Let me say this, let me say this real quick.

We could be here for the rest of the night talking about the jab and all that. I am now alienated by all sides because what has happened is

I've had one half of the inoculation, one half of the jab. I'm not gonna get the second part because that's where the trouble starts.

And so I got the first jab. I'm not gonna get the second jab. So the people who are pro -vaccination are mad at me.

The people who are anti -vaccination are also mad at me. But my question really is, do we, from your perspective, do we have the science behind what the idea is behind this?

Yeah, I think he's asking more about the science of it. But I don't know, I don't think

Frank's a biologist. You're not a biologist, are you? Yeah, I'm an invertebrate zoologist.

So yeah, I'm a biologist. Okay. But I guess my comment is that I don't think we understand enough what

RNA and DNA really are doing functionally because of the intricacy of their operation to know whether we're doing the right thing with this thing or not.

Yeah, we do know quite a bit about the DNA and the RNA molecule and all that. We still have a difficult time trying to define what a gene is.

Now, when I was an undergraduate in biology, we thought we had the idea of a gene sewn up. Turns out we don't.

The nature of the gene, that structure of the DNA molecule that codes for a polypeptide or a protein molecule, that's a very simplistic definition.

Doesn't even begin to describe the nature of the gene. But let me say this, the jury is still out.

Nobody knows for sure what in 30 years, 40 years time, when people have had the full vaccination, will they come down with something atypical?

Will they come down with something that, ooh, the scientists didn't think of this and now millions of people have this

X, Y, Z vision. We cannot say for sure. Time will tell.

I hate to say that, but time will tell. The jury is still out. It may be nothing. It may be like the flu vaccine where I've had the flu.

No, I think I'm an adamant non -vaxxer in anything.

And this just seems, Rob, I don't want Frank to say anything that he doesn't really want to say.

So - Well, no, yeah, it's just that I'm coming down not on one side or the other because what I'm saying is the jury is still out.

You know, that's all I can say for now. Well, let's go ahead and change the subject because we do have a couple other questions.

So - And we are recording. Thank you for your input on that. So Diane actually would like to ask her question herself.

So she's going to unmute herself and ask. Oh, okay, all right. Hi, Frank. Hi. You probably don't remember, but we met when you were at the

Creation Museum in Santee a few years ago when you were speaking. We were out talking at the front desk and you were giving me all kinds of information about bacterias and stuff.

Oh, yeah, I seem to remember that as a matter of fact. Yeah, yeah, we talked for quite a while and your daughter was there.

My question is, I ran across an article a couple of days ago by an atheist,

Ethan Siegel, and he's proposing that the

Big Bang is no longer the beginning of the universe. Oh, yeah, that's recently come out, yeah.

Yeah, I was wondering what, because most of it is way over my head, but it's kind of fascinating that all of a sudden it's not, it's going out of favor.

Yeah, let me say this to your listeners. I think most of you probably know this already.

It is erroneous to say that evolutionists and theistic evolutionists,

Christians, are saying that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Nobody is saying that. What they're saying is the

Big Bang explains the expansion of the universe. As far as the beginning of the universe, the evolutionist doesn't like to be asked that because nobody, by that I mean the evolutionist, the secularist, doesn't know the actual beginning of the universe.

But they say whatever happened at the beginning, nothing became something that underwent what they call a quantum fluctuation, whatever that is.

And this quantum fluctuation resulted in the Big Bang, which then was a massive, very rapid expansion of the universe.

But the evolutionary atheists, to be consistent, must believe in the beginning was nothing, absolutely nothing.

And don't try and think too hard about nothing because you'll go crazy. And so they believe that in the beginning was nothing, this nothing, whatever it was, and it had to be nothing, had this quantum instability and then blew up.

And so what that article is about, if I get your drift on this, is that they are trying to explain what that nothing was.

And it's pure philosophy. It's pure what we call theoretical extrapolation.

They simply cannot say for sure because nobody was there to make the observation.

But we as creationists, we know God was there in the beginning. He was the word of God, John chapter one, the word of God, the

Lord Jesus Christ, who created the universe. He created the DNA molecule in ourselves.

He also flung stars out in space. As a scientist this evening, I have no problem with that. And so did

I answer your question? Yeah, kind of. The bottom line on the article was that when inflation ended, the universe reheated to a high, but not arbitrarily high temperature, giving us the hot, dense and expanding universe that grew into what we had in habit today.

And it's like, that still sounds like the Big Bang. Yeah, it really does.

And so it's called the event horizon. And that is a bigger problem for the

Big Bang proponents. Whatever side they're on, this event horizon, when it comes to the origin of the universe, the speed of light, all of that are inextricably linked, as it were.

And so, yeah, the evolutionary atheist is trying to explain everything without a creator.

And when you get that close to quote unquote, the beginning, everything breaks down and becomes very -

So it's really, his thing is really nothing that new. He just is presenting it that way now.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. Okay, so we do have a couple more questions if you'll grace us with your time a little longer.

Oh, sure, absolutely, yeah. One of them comes from our friend on Facebook, Jeff McGreevey, and he's asking, well, he's going back to the tectonics being only on earth.

And he says that he's pretty sure that the United States has an earthquake sensor on Mars right now.

So would earthquakes relate to tectonic plates? Oh, yeah. So you're talking about two very different things there.

Obviously, yeah, we have a lander on Mars that is trying to penetrate down to the surface to measure,

I guess, the breathing of Mars. I'm not a geologist, but it's most decidedly not tectonic activity.

Mars has no tectonic plates that have ever been seen or discovered.

And we've been using mapping satellites that have mapped the surface of Mars, and they've never come up to the conclusion there's any kind of tectonic plates there.

And so there is earthquake activity, for lack of a better definition, but it's certainly separated from this idea of tectonic plates.

So that's a very good question, and that's a good clarification on that. Although one could argue that it should be called

Marsquakes, right? Yeah, yeah, that's very true. How embarrassing, how embarrassing, that's it.

Okay, we have another question from Justin, and he says, it appears that many religions, beliefs, and cultures agree on the

Great Flood. To your knowledge, do the general timelines also agree across those cultures and spoken word, even those who are not

Judeo -Christian or Western cultures? Yeah, and that is a very good question,

Justin, and I'm glad that you did ask that, because it seems like every major people group, every ethnic group has a

Flood legend, and that's very significant, because it is burned into the memory of these people groups, and you don't have to be a

Christian, a Judeo -Christian, to believe that. For all of these major groups, they have some kind of Flood legend.

So some of them are badly corrupted, as it were, but they all have this idea of a specific group of people and some animals being saved from the ravages of a flood in a man -made structure.

That's a general kind of - Isn't there some like 200, over 200

Flood legends? Well over 200. I think that it's more of like 280 or something like that.

Don't quote me on that. And so, yeah, the time would be maybe a little bit different, the timeline there.

And so, yeah, I would agree. The timeline would not measure up to just thousands of years.

It's what we have maintained is what scripture teaches, a flood being a year long, approximately 4 ,500 years ago.

But I think it's significant enough that you would have these Flood legends in these people groups.

Okay, and then one more question, also from one of our Creation Earth History Museum friends,

Glenn, Glenn Jones asks, can you please tell us what is your favorite parasite and why?

Glenn Jones, I've never heard of Glenn Jones. It's, no, Glenn Jones and I are good friends.

Glenn, I love you, brother. And I'm glad you asked that question. What's my favorite parasite?

Well, it would have to be, drum roll please, Diphyllobothrium latum. And Diphyllobothrium latum is a type of a cestode, which is a tapeworm.

And instead of having hooks, it has longitudinal suckers on the scolex, which is an anterior portion there.

And it attaches itself to the intestine by way of these longitudinal sucker type grooves there.

And this particular cestode or tapeworm has an affinity for vitamin B12. And so the

B vitamins are absorbed by this tapeworm. And so one of the indications that a person, and it's very, very rare that people get this, it almost takes an act of Congress to get

Diphyllobothrium latum. And it's called in layman's terms, the broadfish tapeworm. One of the indications is pernicious anemia and people get very anemic because B vitamins are important for making hemoglobin for your red blood cells and so forth.

And so thank you, Glenn, for that question. And the unique thing about Diphyllobothrium latum or the broadfish tapeworm is that it has not one, but two intermediate hosts.

One is a copepod, which is a type of aquatic insect. And the second one is a fish.

And then for example, bears have Diphyllobothrium latum quite a bit because they love to eat raw fish. And so the parasite is not destroyed by cooking.

Last time I checked, bears don't cook their food. And so they eat the raw fish and get infected.

And so when you see a bunch of bears with anemia, then you'll know why. Okay. All right.

Well, Frank, we've been so blessed to have you with us tonight. And if you want to tell people a little more about yourself, where they can find you, your ministry, you could do that right now.

And then I'll tell people where they can find us too. And then we'll sign off and do a little in -house closeup.

Okay, Terri. Well, I appreciate it. You can go to icr .org. That's the

Institute for Creation Research website. Again, icr .org. And you can read all about us.

And you can also go to YouTube and type in Institute for Creation Research there on YouTube.

And you'll see maybe one or two videos of me. But most of them, a vast, vast majority of them are my colleagues who have presentations.

And I think I only have two, maybe three at the most. So icr .org

or the Institute for Creation Research on YouTube. And Terri, you've been just a wonderful hostess and I appreciate it.

Well, we have been very blessed to have you. And again, we are Creation Fellowship Santee, S -A -N -T -E -E.

You can find us on Facebook. You can email creationfellowshipsantee at gmail .com.

You can also find most of our past videos by looking for us on YouTube. And now we have some of them on Rumble and BitChute as well.