Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Listen to Matt Slick live.

Today's date is April 21st, 2025. If you want to give me a call, you can. It's easy to do. 877-207-2276. I want to hear from you. Give me a call. You can also email me info at karm.org. And we can get to your emails and stuff like that.

Just put in the subject line, radio comment, radio question. And we can check it out. All right. So, working on new projects today. Trying to get things done. There's so much to do. There's so much to do. And looking for video editing stuff. And I've got to be able to figure out how to do one minute videos and then post them to multiple places at a time. While I do the setup, the editing, the voice, you know, I can do the camera work, all of it. I can do everything. And, you know, it's just so much, so much to do. So please be, just be with me and pray on that.

I would appreciate that. And so the pope died. And I think it's really bad news for the pope.

Because, now I'm going to say something here that's going to upset a lot of people. But I don't believe that the pope is a Christian. And I don't believe that he's with the Lord. And the reason I say that is because the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is false when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. So what it does is it teaches a false gospel. And anyone who believes the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, I just can't see them going to heaven. They really believe knowingly, knowledgeably, just affirm what Roman Catholicism teaches in salvation. I can't see how they can be saved. What I want to do really fast is I want to read something to you, go over a little bit of scripture, and make a case for what the Bible says about salvation and the warning that the Bible includes about it.

Because I think it's really important that we check that out, that we do that, so that we can know. I mean, we don't like the idea of saying, well, someone as important as the pope is not saved. That's just not something you want to just get up and say.

You better have reasons for it. Now, there's a lot of Catholics who are what's called sedevacantists. And they deny that the present pope, well, he died yesterday, or today. They deny that there is a true papacy. They say it went apostate, I don't know, 50, 70 years ago, something like that, in the 60s, I think it was.

And sedevacantus, vacant, the seat of the pope is vacant, sedevacantus. They would also say a lot of the things that I would say, that the Catholic teaching is false. Now, what they would say, though, is even more restrictive. They would say that you have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved, and there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

They're hardcore. It's kind of interesting that you get divisions inside of Catholicism like you do. But at any rate, what I want to do is lay a case down for biblical satyriology.

Satyriology is a doctrine of salvation. And one of the things I've been doing is working on templates. I did a video this weekend, and I'm doing a lot more.

What I'm trying to do right now, just to get this really quickly, is I'm trying to set it up so I can get a lot of videos out quickly, and just do one, two, three, four, five a day, things like this, and all kinds of topics, trying to figure out the best way and the easiest way. When you are the one who has to produce them, edit them, upload them, do all that kind of stuff, it really takes a lot of time, and it's just something I have to learn. I wish we had a video guy or girl that I could just say, look, here's the raw stuff.

You take care of it. I'd pay them. I'd pay them a salary if we could get someone like that who knows what they're doing. And I could just do videos, put it up, and they'd just take care of it. And they'd do a good job.

We'd give them all the access and stuff. Anyway, that's a hope. But I'll tell you, it's difficult to find people who want to work on things like that, who don't have a full-time job already and stuff. Anyway, it's just a lot of issues. So what I'm going to do is go through what the Bible says and then what the official Roman Catholic theology says about salvation. And what I want to do is show you how bad Roman Catholicism is. And I'm not joking when I say bad. It really is bad. I'm sorry, but it's just not a Christian organization. It's not Christian. And it promotes a false gospel, a false priesthood, and a false Mary.

And it just does. One of the things that bothers me a great deal is Mark Wahlberg and the actor who plays Jesus in The Chosen. They're kind of teaming up, both Catholics. And what really bothers me about The Chosen is that it's being used to promote Catholicism by people, because Catholicism, it's anti-Christ.

I just have to say it. It's bad. And because mostly Christians don't know their theology very well, they don't know really what the matter is, what the issues really are, then they're, you know, whatever, it's not a denomination. We're just not Catholic. Well, it's not like that.

The Catholic Church teaches absolutely a false gospel. I'm going to prove it here in a little bit. I'm going to go through this and do stuff.

What I'm going to do is go through some scriptures you know about and go through them slowly, do a little bit of teaching on this, and then in a bit we will get to what the Catholic Church teaches officially. And when I first started studying this stuff years ago, I was dumbfounded. And I said, how come no one told me this before?

And then I found out that there were a lot of people who had found the same information and written books, and there's problems. Well, anyway, so we all know this. It says in Ephesians 2, 8, and 9, For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Now, I'm going to introduce a concept to you with Paul, and you got to understand this, is that when Paul talks about law and faith and works and faith, he always separates them. It's always works or faith, not works with a little bit of faith or a little bit of faith or a little bit of works or whatever. He doesn't do it that way. He just says it's law or faith, works or faith. That's how he speaks. It's very clear. So anyway, so he says here you've been saved by grace through faith, not of yourselves.

It is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one would boast. So the Bible clearly teaches that we are saved by faith, not by any form of works. Now, what I want to do is we're going to take a call here. I'm going to do that, and then we'll get to Romans 4.

If you have a Bible or you have a phone thing you want to follow along here in a few minutes what I talked about on Romans 4, I'm going to go through it probably after the break because it's going to take me five minutes or so straight talking just to get through it, to explain what's going on so that we can then get to some other verses and then get into what the Bible actually teaches and what Catholicism actually teaches. Let's get to Ebenezer from California. Ebenezer, welcome. You're on here, buddy. Hey, Matt. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. I hear you fine.

Yes, I'm good. So I came across this Church of Christ guy on TikTok. So he was talking about water baptism is necessary for salvation, and so he made an argument that, what did he say? He said the baptism is a profession of faith. You know how we would say in using 2 Peter, how we would say baptism is outward expression, I guess?

Yes, so what did he say? So he was just saying that water baptism. Yes, because he would say, he said just like how Peter would say, baptism now saves you. 1 Peter 3.21. Yes, it means what it says, and then he said in Romans...

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let's look at the verses one at a time, okay? I'm very familiar with the baptism arguments and stuff like that. What it says there in 1 Peter 3.21 is it says corresponding to that, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus. So corresponding to that, baptism now saves you.

Corresponding to what? Well, it has to do with what's in the preceding verse, and that is Noah's Ark and the people who escaped the flood. So what was it that baptism relates to?

Is it the water? Now, I don't believe it's the water of the flood because that killed people, but the ark is the thing that saved them. Baptism is a trusting work where you enter into something, and it's the faith that saves you, which is why he says not to remove the dirt from the flesh, but an appeal. So I believe he's relating it to the ark and not to the water. So with the Church of Christ, what they'll do is they'll say, well, the Bible says in 1 Peter 3.21, baptism now saves you. They take it right out of context.

They just remove the context so they can say what they want to say. All right, so go ahead. What's the next one?

Yeah, yeah, no, no. And then he jumped to Romans 10. He jumped to Romans 10 because he was jumping all over the place.

He's cherry picking baptism. Which verse? Which verse in Romans 10? Hold on.

Let me pull it up real quick. About baptism? There's no verse in Romans? Yeah, because he was saying that the church in Acts didn't know about, they didn't know, something about they didn't know about baptism or something like that. I don't know.

Let me see. Oh, in the book of Acts. Yeah. In the book of Acts. Yeah. Yeah, something like that. Because I told him about how Philip, when he saved, when he preached to the Ethiopian eunuch, he gave him the gospel first and then he was baptized.

But the emphasis wasn't on baptism, you know? So here, look. Let me tell you something. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So are you familiar with my website on karm.org? Yeah. Okay. So what I would recommend you do is go there and read to the baptism section. We have a whole section on baptism and a lot of verses there. We've got a break, so hold on.

But there are ways to answer them and I provide the verses they go to and how to look at them and give you responses. So hold on, buddy. We've got a break. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. Please stay tuned. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Ebenezer. Are you still there, buddy? Yeah.

All right. Here's one of the things I say to them that really throws them for a loop when they're talking about baptisms necessary for salvation. And I'll say, so you have to be fully immersed in water? And they'll say yes.

Was Jesus fully immersed in water at his baptism? And they say yes. And I say, can you show me that in the scripture?

And they can't. It doesn't say he's fully immersed. They go, well, that's what baptism means. It says, are you sure? No, but he told me, he told me, he told me that, because I said the Catholics believe that the water is necessary to save you. Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Let me finish the thought, okay? Because I believe Jesus was sprinkled at his baptism because, and I have the article in CAR and it goes through the scriptures, he had to fulfill the law. That's what it says. That's why he was baptized, Matthew 3.15, to fulfill the law, to fulfill all righteousness.

That's what it says. To fulfill what? Old Testament. Well, he entered into the priesthood at his baptism.

He had to be 30 years of age. He had to have oil anointed on him, which is the Holy Spirit, a verbal blessing given, my beloved son whom I'm well pleased, and according to the law, he had to be sprinkled with water. That's the law. Now, when I bring this up to people and I show it to them, especially the church of Christ people, it really is a gut punch to them.

They don't know what to do with this because they've never seen it before. It's something to think about, okay? Yeah, yeah. I want to write that down.

Hold on. What passage did you say, Fulfill All Righteousness? It's Matthew 3.15, but you should go to my website, karme.org, and type in why was Jesus baptized. Okay.

So I went through. I've done a very extensive study on this where I looked up water in the Old Testament, and I looked at every instance, looking for anything about baptism, and then I went to the Pentateuch and did the same thing. I mean, I really looked, and there was no place where anyone entering into that priesthood ever was immersed in water.

It was sprinkling. And then I did studies on baptized with, anointed with. So you're anointed with oil. You're sprinkled with blood. You're baptized with water.

And I looked at the pattern. And so, anyway, it's something that they can't handle, and most Christians can't handle it either. And then when people say that, like the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, they say it means he was immersed. And I say, well, go look at it, because it says the eunuch and Philip both went into the water. Were they both immersed? No, they were not.

And so there's just things in there that people make assumptions too quickly, too easily. So if you were to go to the website and look up the issues of baptism, you have plenty of information that will give you a lot of ammo to counter their false doctrines, okay? Okay, I'll do that. Okay, buddy. All right, man. All right, thank you, Matt. All right, God bless. Okay, talk to you later. Yeah, I know, folks, I just probably blew some people's minds, but that's what the Scripture says, as far as I can see.

I'm open to correction, but that's what it says. Jermaine from California. Hey, Jermaine, welcome back, buddy. Oh, hey, Matt. I was enjoying that last conversation. I learned a little bit myself. Well, I can go into it real deeply, but a lot of people, they're just not ready for it.

They're not ready. But anyway, go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to ask you about pacifism and Scripture. It seems like some people take certain texts to mean that they are literally not supposed to defend themselves. I heard a story once where someone was literally watching a couple of men abuse their family, and they did nothing because they felt as if their violence was wrong in their capacity. I mean, I actually kind of think that's going anti-Christian, based on what I've read. I just see it as a mandate, especially as a man and protector of your home, to at least give an effort to try and defend your family. You know, I actually hear what you have to say on that, because I don't know what Scripture they're actually holding to people who do hold that particular view. Yes, the idea is called pacifism, and it's biblical and it's also not biblical, depending on circumstances.

I have an article written on Karm. Do Christians have the right of physical self-defense? Now, let's go through a few concepts, because what I did was I put summary points, 15 of them. So, with Scripture, physical self-defense is permitted, but it's not an obligation. And we're not talking about physical self-defense.

We're going to get to the other, okay? We have the right and obligation to defend others. That's Psalm 82.4, Proverbs 24.11, Luke 22.36. So, we have the right to defend ourselves, but not the obligation. If someone's persecuting you for your faith, you have the right to defend yourself, but you don't have the obligation to.

You can just take it. But if someone else is being assaulted, now that steps in. Rescue the weak and needy. Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82.4. Proverbs 24.11 says, Deliver those who are being taken away to death and those who are staggering to slaughter, or hold them back.

Jesus says in Luke 22.36, But whoever has a money belt is to take it along, although likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. They understand that to be self-defense. But on the other hand, we're not to take vengeance. I can give all the references.

I'll just skip giving the references. We are to seek peace whenever possible. We can flee to avoid persecution, pray for our persecutors, love our enemies, et cetera. We defend the true gospel. We're to resist evildoers. But we do have the obligation to defend others. So if you and I are walking along a road and we see some guy beating on somebody, we go over there and we stop him. That's what we're supposed to do. Okay? Yeah, I think that was crystal clear, and I agree with you.

I just want to hear some developed thoughts on it. Is it possible that some of those people are just convicted enough to just not want to participate at all? I'm trying to use another word besides cowardice because I do think some people fall in that category, but is it possible that some folks just feel convicted enough to say they just don't want to do anything?

Well, yeah, there are people who don't want to do anything, and according to their conscience, they don't. Now, my own brother, I have two brothers. I'm the oldest, and one of them, my middle brother, he's a freak when it comes to strength. He's one of those rare guys. He can lift people up and throw them.

He's like 6'3", 300 pounds, and okay. So I asked him once, I said, if you come home and someone's beating on your wife, what are you going to do? Are you going to stop him? He says, well, I'll stop him gently. I said, okay.

I wouldn't be gentle, but people have different convictions, you know. Hey, hold on, buddy. We've got a break, okay? So hold on. Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these, excuse me, messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show. Bottom of the hour.

Let's get back on with Jermaine. Still there, buddy? Yes, I am. All right. Okay. So I hope that helped. No, it helped a lot, especially the visual of your oversized brother coming home and gently beating somebody up. But I think for the most part, for me, I do believe you have a responsibility to protect life and whether it's yours or someone else's.

I think that's the most difficult thing I could find. Right. Yeah, and we do.

We have that obligation, so we need to do that. In fact, when I carry and I go into stores, you know, I can still carry, I often just map out the place. What would I do if I hear this or I hear that? Would I run forward towards the problem or away from it? Just depending on situations because, you know, if someone, a gunman comes in, let's say, is shooting, if I'm with my wife, I'm getting her out. If I'm by myself, I'm the kind of guy where I'm going to move forward towards it. I don't know if I would or not.

It's a real situation because you don't know what you're going to do until you're there. But I'm the kind of guy who does that and moves forward to help others. So, you know, I believe it's an obligation within reason to be able to do that. Now, about my brother, he could gently stop someone from injuring somebody else by picking them up with one arm and holding them out by his neck and walking them outside and throwing them across the yard. He's one of those kind of guys. But the average Joe can't do that, you know.

So, it would take different means. Yep. All right.

Well, we're willing to get to talk with you tomorrow, Matt. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. All right, buddy. God bless, man. God bless. All right, now let's get to the next longest waiting is Jake from Florida.

Jake, welcome. You are on the air. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, I can.

Yes, I can. Awesome. Hey, so, yeah, I'm a grad student here in Florida.

And at my university every so often, I think his name is Alex. They come and do some open air preaching, and I got into a conversation. And I think, like, we really started to talk about evolution.

And then he said, oh, yeah, Matt Slick would be, you know, a good person to talk to about that. And so, finally have found the time to call in and just, I guess, basically ask why, I guess, and we can reframe the question depending on, you know, circumstances, but, like, why should I not accept evolution is the way I framed it. Sure. Let's define our terms. How do you define evolution?

So the way that I've generally characterized evolution is small incremental changes in the allelic frequencies of a population over time that eventually leads to speciation. Right. Now, the problem with this is that information is intertwined genetically. So you know about protein folds, right, and alleles and stuff like this. Yes. Okay, so then you know that when the folding pattern of folding has to be super importantly located precisely because when certain areas of the DNA combine with other areas, then you get a new something coming up.

It's really complicated. And so when you say minor, put it this way, when you say minor variations, okay, you know the term deleterious means hidden harmful effects? You know about this, right, deleterious? Yeah. Okay, so genetic mutations are uniformly deleterious.

Now, sometimes they'll say, well, something is beneficial, but yes and no. So let's back up. Let's just say that there's an organism with 100 genetic units, 100 genetic units, like a sparrow or a finch, it doesn't matter. A flock of birds of one species get, that was weird. Wow, I saw something reflected. Wow, that was weird. Sorry.

In my computer monitor, and then I could look out the window behind me and something weird just went by, so I got a little distracted. Interesting. So let's just say a flock of these birds, 100 pairs, gets blown off into an island and they're the only birds there. All right.

And so then they propagate throughout the entire island, and let's say there's 10,000 breeding pairs in 50 years, let's just say. Okay. And then there's a drought, and the drought causes the nuts that they eat to have harder shells. And so, therefore, it's harder for the birds to get to the nuts for food. Okay. So then what we have is we have standard mutation appearance manifestation that is by randomness that are already there extant in the genome.

It's already there. So when a bird is born with a thin bill, it can't break the nuts, he dies out. The thick-billed ones are stronger-billed ones. You know, they can get the food and they can survive. So what we see here is a reduction of the gene pool in order for that species to survive. A lot of times what people forget is that speciation often occurs by the reduction of genetic information, not the increase.

Not always. But that's one of the things that people see, and they don't understand that it's a reduction. Well, the issue is where did the information come from in the first place? Well, some people say that randomness provides new genetic information that then is propagated through a species in a certain area, and it propagates.

Well, there's problems with that, and there's humongous problems with it. In fact, you should do research on something called the mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. The mathematics doesn't support the theory of evolution because the genetic information frequency change needed, there's not enough time in the physical universe for not just speciation, because that's different, but phyla generation.

There's not enough time. And you know the difference between phyla and species, right? Yes. So propagation of new genetic information is not isolated to one set or one area in the genome. It has to be propagated through all areas. So a larger bill on a bird also has to have the musculature attached to it, the tendons attached to it, and the brain function that's attached to it, and the bone function that can handle it as well. So there are multiple necessities that have to be involved when a very, very, very, very slight modification occurs. But if you're going to talk about phyla change, that's humongously difficult, and mathematics just pokes holes in it all over the place. Because what they do is they start, I don't know, I don't understand the math, but I read some articles on it. And the mathematicians who get into this biological information of information formation and transformation and propagation through a species, they say there's not enough time. It doesn't work. But this information is kind of buried, okay?

So there's that. Information is the Achilles' heel of evolution. Where does it come from? How is it propagated? What defines evolution? Why is it that certain evolutionary, excuse me, informational propagations are beneficial and not harmful?

And how many per se are beneficial, so to speak, that are not deleterious? When you get the minutia of a beneficial mutation, which can occur, and then you move towards phylogeneration, the mathematics just says, no, remember the one article, you need like 240 billion years. 240 billion for it to work.

I mean, it's ridiculous. Here, let me just jump around. Have you ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?

Have you heard of that? Well, the Cambrian explosion, it could be anywhere from 5 to 35 million years, low to long. So I just do an average. Let's just say 20 million years, 25 million years, the Cambrian explosion. When you go to the rock strata and you look at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion, suddenly 40 new body types, new phyla, suddenly appear in the rock strata with no transitionals before, all over the world. How is that possible? Not possible. Forty new body types suddenly appear at the beginning, not gradually through 20 million years of the Cambrian explosion, at the beginning of it, instantly, so to speak. There's that.

Want to hear another problem? Sure. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, which means that by 100,000 years, an organism that's absorbed it through eating, respiration, et cetera, because it doesn't produce it itself, has to come in from outside the organism. Within 100,000 years, there will be no carbon-14 left in anything that was once alive. So if you have a squirrel that dies, you can measure how long it's been dead by how much carbon-14 it has in it. After 100,000 years, technically it's 93,000, but after 100,000 years, there is none. This is why they can use carbon-14. The problem is diamonds and coal shells, which are millions and millions and millions of years old, have carbon-14 in them.

That can't be explained by evolutionary theory. This is just one of the problems. We'll be back. We'll share some more with you. Hey, folks, be right back after these messages, please. Stay tuned.

Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the show. Let's get back on with Jake from Florida.

Jake, are you still there? Yeah. You want some more information?

More stuff? I'm just going to sort it out quickly, but do you want some? I mean, sure. Okay. Do you trust mathematics?

Is it good? I wouldn't necessarily say good or bad, but it is something that I accept. Are you familiar with exponential notation? Yeah. All right.

Okay. You mean like when something is at an exponential scale relative to a logarithmic one? It could be, but basically exponential notation is just simply 2 to the 4th, 2 to the 5th, 10 to the 7th. You know, it's exponents. Oh, yeah, yeah. I use that all the time. Yeah.

Okay. So there's a theoretical number, a maximum number of events that could occur in the universe. It's called the universal probability bound. Theoretical number. That's all it is. The fastest rate a particle can change its state is 10 to the 40th times per second.

I don't understand why, what, who, what. I just read this stuff. It's the fastest it can change. It's not possible to go any faster. The number of, if the universe, you know, they say it's 14.3 billion years old, let's assume it's 18 billion years old and convert that into seconds. That's coincidentally 10 to the 18th seconds. And there's roughly 10 to the 80th particles in the universe.

That's a high estimate. I think they said 10 to the 78th, but 10 to the 80th, make it easy. So how many potential events could occur in the entire universe if it was 18 billion years old and every particle in the entire universe was changing its state? I think it's a valence state at the maximum rate, which is actually the Planck's constant.

What's the maximum rate it can do it? It's 10 to the 40th. The maximum number of events would be 10 to the 138th power. That's it, 10 to the 138th. If every particle in the entire universe for 18 billion years was actually changing its state, it would have gone up, down, out, whatever it is, 10 to the 138th power.

It's an immensely huge number. Now, deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, we have adenine, guanine, thiamine, and cytosine. AT and GC, they go together. So you have four combos, AT and TA, GC and CG, four. So in the helix, the twist is formed by the sugar phosphate bond where the nucleotide bond pairs of the adenine, guanine, for example, AG, will form.

They can form, and then they can form AG or GA. They're flipped inside the helix. It's like a ladder, if you have a ladder, and we'll just take the helix and flatten it out.

No big deal, just flatten it out. And you look at each step on a ladder, one, two, three, four, because you have AT or TA, GC and CG, so you have four possibilities, one, two, three, four. So let's just say we have these steps on this ladder, numbered one, two, three, and four, and we have a kabillion of each, just sitting over in a big pile. Now, the smallest number of nucleotide bond pairs that I've read about that they say still has life exists in a virus, and it's something like 230,000 nucleotide bond pairs.

230,000. That's just the DNA strand. That's not even the chromosomes arrangement or the gene sequencing or anything, gene formation or expression, even. So anyway, what's the mathematics behind this? Well, it'd be simple. The odds of the first step being one, two, three, or four is one quarter, or 0.25. The next one is 0.25, the next one is 0.25. So real simple. So what would the odds of any particular arrangement of those steps be in something 220,000 steps?

Well, it'd be 0.25 to the 220,000th power. And that's just to get a particular arrangement. Well, randomness, we can get any arrangement we want. But it has to be met with RNA when it does a sequence splitting. It has to be met with a reader that comes in and understands what's happening when the sequences divide and do their generation thing.

All right. So when this happens, it's information. Information doesn't exist if there's no receiver.

If there's only a sender but there's nothing transmitted and nothing received, it's not information. It's nothing. Like the word cat. If cat was the only thing in the universe, it's not a word because there's no minds to read. There's nothing. It's just there. The same thing with the information that's in the sequence that has to be read and the mathematics about it, that it's working, is so astronomically against probability that it exceeds the universal probability bound by the exponential notation of tens of thousands of places.

It's humongously and unfathomably deeply problematic. This is just to get the certain sequences. Then they have to be combined. Then they have to be read. People say, well, it's just randomness that just kind of works because it's the properties of matter. I say, oh, so life comes from non-life and information comes from non-information.

They'll say, yes. I say, we call that magic. That's called magic. Life comes from non-life. Information comes from non-information. We know of no places where information exists without intelligence. Nothing.

Let me just sidestep. Did you know that evolution requires millions of years in order for it to, so to speak, theoretically work? Millions and millions of years. The police have seen rock layer by just observational positioning. I've got this out of the Principles of Isotope Geology, second edition, in 1986. And rock layer positioning is 1.6 million years old, but the rubidium strontium method is 773 million years old.

Potassium argon of the upper myocene to pliocene lava, 5 to 9 million years, but rubidium strontium gave 31 to 39. There's humongous, and I'm only reading just two, there's many, many, many stratigraphically problematic evidences. Then there's what's called polystrate fossils.

People are bulldozing roads through mountainsides, a mountain pass, and geologists can go out there and do a field test. Look over there, 600 billion years of rock strata right there, whatever it is. And they'll keep bulldozing, and then there's a single tree fossilized through 600 million years of rock strata.

But this information is suppressed. Did you know that basically all of hominid ancestors, not hominoid, but hominid, hominoid can be primates of all types, but hominid is supposedly only... The hominid ancestors in the human line can fit all of them on a pool table, the size of a pool table.

Say that one more time, sorry. All of the hominid ancestors for humans, that fossil evidence, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, they could all fit on a single pool table. This is where they get all the human evolution stuff from.

Yeah, there's definitely been more evidence corroborated since then, but yeah, definitely. Yeah, maybe two pool tables. You'd think after millions and millions of years all over the world, you'd think, hey, wait a minute, there should be a lot more all over. Transitional forms. That's a whole nother problem is transitionals. Like archaeopteryx, because you know what that is. Archaeopteryx, it's a reptile-less bird, and they say it's a transitional form. Well, you know, my geology class raised my hand. How do you know?

How do you know? Get this, because it looks like it. Or eohippus, right? They would go through the small horses to the big horses. They'd say, see that? And they'd say, see, that's how evolution works. How do you know those are related? Well, because they look like it.

I say, let me get this straight. They look like it, and that's why it's a scientific fact? Because it looks like it? That's it?

Looks like it. Plus, in the eohippus line, geographically, or geologically, excuse me, a couple of the transistional, supposed transitionals are swapped. They get bigger, bigger, bigger, small, bigger, bigger, bigger, small, bigger, like this. There's all kinds of stuff, man. There's all kinds of stuff. Soft fossil tissue has been found, and those fossils, 80 million years old.

How can you have fresh tissue? And also, there's a video out I just saw over the weekend, or on Thursday night, actually, where a guy learned how to make fossils in his garage. 4,000 pounds of pressure and a lot of heat, and he put fish in and some stuff. He goes, he just wanted to see if he could do it.

That's all. And he learned how to make fossils. And he took some fossils to some geologist, and what do you think of this? Well, I don't know what kind of fish it is, but it's 150 million years old.

I made it in my garage two weeks ago. Then there's what's called genetic drift. Some years ago, it was discovered that human DNA has a high mutation rate and is deteriorating at an alarming rate. Mutations galore. Humans have high mutation rates, but why worry, Scientific American?

Why worry? Because in supposedly 200 to 250 generations down the line, the human genome will no longer be viable because of the mutations that creep in. It accumulates 90,000 errors in just 6,000 years. That's.003% of our DNA becomes inoperative, less than 10,000 years. By 6 million years, 3% of our DNA, or one in every 33 pieces of code, would be damaged.

How could such a life form exist? And if it goes backwards 6 million years old, you have problems. It doesn't work. I'm telling you, man, there's lots of evidence out there against evolution. In fact, there's an increasing number of scientists who have more degrees than a thermometer who are rejecting evolution.

It just isn't working. Have you heard of epigenetics, by any chance? Yes.

You know, it's kind of Lamarckian if you ask me, but epigenetics, where did the information come from, and why is it that environments can activate or deactivate genes which then can produce different body types that people can say are microevolutionally related in the fossil record when they're really not, because it's just epigenetically related. You see the problems? Yeah. I'm not a big expert in epigenetics. I think it's a fascinating area of study, but yeah, there's definitely more to understand with respect to that. You know, I don't want to comment on things that I'm not.

I don't have strong expertise. Yeah, I got you. Hey, we're out of time, man.

There's some music behind you. We've got to go, okay? Yeah, okay.

Call back, man, and talk to Alex sometime. God bless, buddy. Got to go. All right. Thank you. Have a good one. Okay, you too. Thanks. Bye-bye. Powered by the Truth Network.