Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick Live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at Carm.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live for answers, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Hey everybody, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick, and you're listening to Matt Slick Live. If you want, you can give me a call. It is easy. All you have to do is dial 877-2072276.

And uh you can also email me. To do that, just send an email to info at carm.org. Info at CARM.org. And all you gotta do at that point is just put the subject line radio comment or radio question, and you can. You can do that now.

I'm gonna get my file open here. This one thing here. Hold on, I got this stuff open to see. There we go. All right, we have nobody waiting right now.

I want to hear from you. And there we go.

Now we're trying something new. A little bit with the program.

So I'll just let you guys know that we use what's called EV Mux to broadcast. And it goes to multiple platforms, Facebook, YouTube, X, it goes to Rumble. All simultaneously. And a new feature came in.

So I don't know how it works, but a new feature says it can simultaneously broadcast landscape and portrait.

So it's a new feature. I don't know how it's working. I don't know if it is working. But you could uh let me know or you can Let Laura know, or something like that. I don't know how it works.

Let's see what she said. I only see the landscape view on my phone.

Okay.

Okay, well, that's what it is. Hey, we're trying. We're learning new stuff, or trying to learn new stuff. All right, like I said, if you want to give me a call, the number is 877-207-2276. All right.

So I I I did two miles around the block today. Before the radio show, and what I often do is just go into a chat room someplace. I just go in and give something a try. It's gone. We know what happens in this chat room.

And sometimes I make a mistake. I'm going into a chat room that's hostile to reform theology, and I did that today. But I will say, though, that they were polite and said that karm was a good resource and things like that. but was interesting. to me is How do I say this politely?

Is how desperate people are to misinterpret the Word of God and just. uh just insert views that they can't They can't substantiate. They just say it what it is. And it was really interesting. They assume their positions are correct without demonstrating that their positions are correct.

They just say it is. It just is. And uh So I asked a question about what first Samuel 314. And it says, I've sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquities of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.

Now, I just asked, what do you think that means? Does it mean, or does that include the sacrifice of Christ? I asked the question. And this is really interesting because I asked the question, and they did not. Answer the question.

They told me that I was using it for a certain reason, and that what I meant by it when I never said what I meant by it. And it was, to me, it was very interesting. It happens like this all the time. And so. You know, we got talking about the word all and the word forever.

And this one gentleman, you know, God bless him, he said with the word forever, Olam there. In the other place, it doesn't mean it's continuous. And I said, that's correct. That's correct, but you can't take the context of or the word meaning in a different context and apply it here. And I said, a word has a semantic domain, a range of meaning in different contexts.

I said, but what does it mean here? I'm just asking the question. I said, in part, I'm going to see how you guys handle this. They all said the same thing: that I was the one misreading it when I didn't even tell them what my view was on it. This kind of stuff really happens a lot, and I asked them some questions they didn't do too well answering, but.

The the summation is is simple. People come to the Word of God with their ideas. And they hold on to those ideas.

Well they hold on to them as though they are idols. They have to mean certain things a certain way. It cannot possibly mean anything else. And this is what I encounter a lot among the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, a lot of Protestants as well. And um It's just sad.

I I don't see too much uh too many Let's just say observations where someone says, you know, that's an interesting point. I need to examine that. Which is fine. And they could say, you know, I don't know what it means. Oh, in fact, that reminds me.

Yeah. At one point in our conversation, I said, Why did Jesus speak in parables? And they didn't get it right. I said, Mark 4, 10 through 12, it's so they will not be forgiven, which is what Jesus says. And this one woman gets on and she says that a context is about Not about the 12 apostles, you mean it's just the 12 apostles, or not this 12, but I'm like, what?

And I said, Well, what's the context? She goes, Talking to the Pharisees. And uh And then when we finally went to it, she had to read the whole thing because she didn't know the context.

So People are so desperate to hold on to their theological views. Do you know your theology? And What's your attitude about theology? Like pre-trib rapture, is it correct? Is it?

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. What do you say about people who don't have the same view as you? I'm reminded of. Two different pastors from Calvary Chapel that I have heard in the past, let's just say, six months.

Where uh One local, one online, where, you know, when Calvinism was brought up and how they misrepresented it. and condemned it. and in such a way that I would see it as causing division in the body of Christ. And this is shameful. It's shameful to do that.

See, I don't agree with, for example, I don't agree with pre-tribulation rapture. But you know what I say? I say, there are good people on. that view. You know like Chuck's Missler, he held to that view.

I learned a great deal from him. And they're intelligent people with their reasons. I don't agree with those reasons, I come to a different conclusion. But it doesn't mean that we need to cause division or look down our noses at them. That's my attitude with stuff.

But it's not the attitude of a lot of people because they say we know what it really is. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Just don't be so judgmental. Let's get to okay, Patrick from Ohio. Patrick, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey Matt, how are you doing today?

Well, doing okay. Hanging in there, man. What do you got? Good.

So my question is, I have been kind of deep in the last few months and Some creation-based stuff. I started reading, you're familiar with Hugh Ross, I would assume. Yes.

So I was, you know, I was reading this book called Creation in Time. Hey uh I was just wanting to know your view on Um If I guess I don't even know your view on the literal 24 hours versus long creation days, but Um what is your view on Being able to Call them twenty-four-hour days if the sun and the moon would measure days. uh were not created until the fourth day. All right, so that's a very interesting question. Let me give you a little bit of a history on something that happened to me about this.

And it's not that big a deal. I'm just trying to find a way to insert it in. Because back in the day when I was in my mid teens, I was not a Christian. And I went to the Bible to start reading the Bible. And I thought, oh, I'm going to read this because I wanted to be a marine biologist.

I want to go into science. And. I'm going to read this.

So I read it and I tossed it because it said just what you're saying. the day is there without the sun. And I went, oh, this is ridiculous. It doesn't know what he's doing.

Okay, it's obviously not scientifically accurate.

So I just tossed the Bible. Literally, I just tossed it like three feet onto my bed. I forgot where I got it or whatever.

Okay.

I don't know, a year later or so. I was reading an article in a science journal. Don't ask me which one. And I was a complete nerd in high school. Anyway, so I was reading this article in a science journal, and the guy wrote: You're getting a lot of noise in the background there, man.

A lot of noise.

Okay.

So So he this guy was a scientist and he said, What would you see? if you were standing on the planet's surface, what would you see? and he described exactly what you'd see. in Genesis 1. He said the sun exists, but you can't see it because the atmosphere is full of clouds, full of vapor, full of varying things.

And he went through and explained how photosynthesis occurs on the plants through diffused light, and it brings a chemical into the atmosphere and something else with the sun's rays on the atmosphere. The result would be. that you'll be able to see the sun later. And that forced me to go back to the Bible and say, wait a minute, if that perspective is the case. How did they know that?

Yeah. So I thought it was interesting. I don't get to say that story very often.

So Is the earth old? I have no problem with the earth being very old. I have no problem with it being very young. God made Adam as a mature man. He could certainly make the universe it look old.

I don't have any problem with either one. I lean towards a very young earth for scientific reasons as well as biblical ones. And we can get into that if you want, but I don't know if I've answered your question, kind of rambling there a little bit. Yeah. Okay.

Well, no, no, I appreciate that. Yes, I'm just trying to It just kind of blew my mind too because there were, in his book, he talked about. The people have been denied memberships Yeah. From denied memberships and being members of churches if they don't believe in the young earth theory, which I think is just insanity. You know, I guess I never realized how deep.

this whole issue is. And it seems like is the argument. It's like Atheists probably love that we're arguing about this because it's causing division.

So they just probably love that we're continuing to argue about young versus olders. Yeah, if someone came to me and wanted to work with Karm, for example, and they were at Old Earth, I would just ask them lots of questions just to make sure they're within orthodoxy, and I wouldn't deny them working with us based on that version. If they had their reasons and it was biblically based and they were using science, and it wasn't that science was over Scripture. Then I wouldn't have a problem. I would disagree, and that's okay.

In fact, some of the people, in fact, I can't even tell you what they all believe in all things. I just don't care. They believe the essentials. But I'm very familiar with this kind of a thing about being denied certain memberships because of certain things. I've had it happen to me too, because I believe, for example, in the Calvinist doctrine of infant baptism, but not for salvation, was the covenant signed through covenantal parenthood.

That's all. And I can't be a member of our church. What? It's just ridiculous. I'm with you.

I think it's just dumb. Yeah, Okay. All right.

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Enjoy the rest of your night. Sure. I'm just curious, what's your view, young or old?

Honestly, I don't really know where I land right now. There's. There's a lot of uh There's a lot of science behind both, and I'm kind of, you know, I grew up. I grew up not really paying attention to what I thought about that, but over the last few years I leaned towards a younger. Towards you know towards towards 24-hour creation days, but you know, I also realized that um that God made science and He allows science to work.

So you know, and and it's like you said, if uh If you create it, you know, if you put things in place, you know, trees, plants, you know, if you put a tree in place that has. that already has age rings in it. He's God, he can do that.

So, think about this. Yeah, I don't know. I'm still trying to explore exactly where I land and. That's kind of where I'm at. If you want to hold on, it can go through some.

Problems with the old earth in science. Science. stuff, real science stuff. that uh And I'm not saying it's 100% conclusive, but there's some evidence. It's interesting.

If you want to hold, go ahead. If you don't, go ahead and just hang up by pulling it. Hey, folks, we write back after these messages. Please stay tuned. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Hey, everybody, welcome back to the show. If you want to give me a call, it is easy: 877-207-2276. Patrick, you still there? Yep, I'm still here.

All right, now I'm just going to tell you that I came out of a heavy science presuppositional worldview. And I didn't get rid of it. Not get rid of it. I still have it. But I didn't let it be.

Submitted to scripture for quite a while. It just took a while. But at any rate, So I love science and I still do. But um did you know that carbon 14 is found in diamonds. Diamonds are supposed to be 990 million years old, some as old as 3.2 billion years old.

and carbon fourteen is found in them. The problem is that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years. I don't know if you know what that is, but it means, for those who don't know, it means if you have a gram of carbon-14 in 5,730 years, just by doing nothing, its mass is less by one half. Half-life means half of that, then half of that, then half of that, over a period of time, just called radiometric decay.

Okay.

Well that means then by 93,000 years, no carbon-14 is left in any element.

Now the reason this is important is because carbon-14 is only retained or acquired in a biological system.

So diamonds are coming out of shale coal and compressed fauna and other things. And so under high pressure the carbon fo folds into uh carbon-14 and you have diamonds. Which means then that CARDO-14 is human, not human, it's biologically derived. which means after something dies, the half-life is in effect because there's no increase of carbon into the system because it's dead. It's not eating it, not absorbing it, nothing.

It's just it which means that any and all life forms after 93,000, we'll just say 100,000 should have nar no carbon-14. But they find diamonds with carbon-14 in them all over the place. It's a real problem. Interesting. Oh yeah.

Oh yeah, yeah. And also in Principles of Isotopic Geology, second edition, in 1986.

So They have ways of doing radiometric uh dating for rocks.

Okay, we have potassium argon, rubidium, strontium, et cetera.

Well The Pleistocene rock layer. Uh Just by observation, rock layer positioning is 1.6 million years old. Rubidian strontium shows that it's 773 million years old. Yeah. There are contradictions in all kinds of stuff of dating.

Potassium argon is 183 to 252 million years old. On Tracy Cage stuff, but rubidium strontium isochron method does 393. lead lead lead dating method is called lead lead. Is 1.4 million years.

So 1,425 million, in other words, 1.4 billion years. In other words, these dating methods are problematic. They don't give the same dates. Yeah, and the other, I think one of the other issues I have is. If if you don't If you don't have something that old, how can you measure it up against Against that age, if you don't have anything that is represented from that.

That's kind of been one of my whole issues. You know, if if you don't have anything that's that's settled. said, how are you telling me it's settled and you're measuring it up against something you don't have? Yeah. Right.

and then they get different measurements. Here's another one that I found is very interesting. This is out of mutations galore. Humans have high mutation rates, but why? Why worry?

In Scientific American. In 1999.

Some years ago, it was discovered that human DNA has a high mutation rate and is deteriorating at an alarming rate.

Well, In quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Mueller's Ratchet and Human Mitochondrial DNA article. In genetics research in 2006. It says this. Calculations based on the accumulation of detrimental mutations in just the mitochondrial DNA genome alone suggest that the evolutionary ancestral line leading to humans would have become extinct. 20 million years ago.

Yeah. Oh, there's problems. There are problems, Galore. The radiometric dating things, fossil soft tissue. You're finding eighty million year old soft tissue?

In bars? When this was first presented, by the woman's name, they laughed her. They laughed at her, laughed her out of the room. Get out of here. That's stupid.

That doesn't last. And then they found out she was right. Oh, man, yes.

So then there's volcanic activity problems. And then, you know, what gets me is the information problem. And it gets into mathematics, then endogenous retroviruses, all kinds of stuff that I've studied over the years. But um then gene horizontal gene rate transfer problems. And anyway.

I love science. I love this stuff. Love talking about it. Anyway, so there's problems. Yeah, well one is one.

Yeah, one of the other things I noticed, you know, when you talk about the mutation rate, And I'm thinking if just look at how much human life all the things that have been instituted into our world since since man was created, since the fall of man, So if you think about if you look at how much that's changed in the last you know, six to ten thousand years and then it makes sense if people were around long before that, they wouldn't have even made it to this point. Right. But yeah, okay.

Well, I appreciate it. I'm enjoying looking into all this stuff. I appreciate your insight, Matt. All right.

I'll give one more. Wait, if I but I'll give it after you hang up and we'll get the next caller, okay, brother? All right, ma'am?

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay, God bless.

Alright, folks, so I'll give this one more little thing that's really, really interesting. The if you if you go to um To various charts of the geological age of the Earth. It'll have Miocene, Pleistocene, Mesozoic, Cenozoic. It'll have different levels, different age things. The Cambrian explosion Yeah.

is a period Of roughly 530 million years ago that lasted around the averages around 10 million years, the different views.

So in roughly 10 million years, 40 new body types emerged in 40 million years.

Some people think, well that that could be done. No, it can't. The genetics does not allow it in forty million years. It's a blink of an eye. When we talk about body types, a snake, a fish, a bird, a reptile, a human, these are body types.

and the genetic transference necessary for modification to new body types is immense. It's so vast, immense, that the ten million year gap is nothing. It just can't work. There have been mathematical studies on DNA transferability, horizontal transference of new genetic information through mutations or cosmic ray interference. And it just does not work.

And it is a humongous problem, and they don't know why the Cambrian explosion ca occurred. And so a new theory came out called punctuated equilibrium. And this was in part to answer that, but also to answer why in the fossil record there are humongous gaps between species.

So you may have heard of Eohippus, the horse horse species thing, where you have a small horse to a big horse.

Well, this is called homology. In other words, it looks like they belong together, so they belong together. That's the science. It looks like it. That's not science.

That's philosophy. Yeah, there's problems there. Hey, after the break, we'll get to Chris from Idaho. And if you want to give me a call, the number is 8772-07-2276. We'll 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. Just want to let you know that we stay on the air by your support. If you would be so kind as to consider supporting us, we would love that.

All you got to do is go to carm.org, C-A-R-M.O-R-G, and just go to the top of the page. You will see the word there, donate. And we do stay on the air by that. That's how we live. It's how we've been doing this for about 20 years now.

Actually, 22, 21 years. I've been full-time doing this and with the missionaries and stuff like that.

So please consider supporting us. We need it. And may the Lord bless you in it. All right, let's get to Chris from my. Idaho, Chris, welcome.

You're on the air. Hey Matt, how's it going? Oh, it's going. Hanging in here. Where are you in Idaho?

Uh well, I live in Boise.

Well, that's right. Oh, yeah, we've talked multiple times. I know you're out in Ampa, so. Yeah, and I've invited you to our study. Yeah, I invited you to the study we've had.

Yeah, which is tonight, as a matter of fact, if you want to go. But not no big deal. But anyway. Oh, is it?

Okay.

Anyway, what do you got, buddy? What's up? Um.

Okay, so uh For me, you know, I have been. Having conversations with a lot of atheists, and I'm. see like a pattern of how they kind of come at me. It's typically Uh The most recent thing is trying to reconcile the God of the New Testament with the Old Testament.

Okay.

Um And You know, they'll, and I was like, whoa, can you give me some references? What are you talking about? And they're like, well, So I was talking to this one girl and she said that the uh Um The Midianites, the slain of the Midianites. And How can you reconcile that type of violence with the Jesus of the New Testament? And she kept saying, Well, don't you believe in the Holy Trinity?

And I said, Yes. And she's like, Well, there's a contradiction. Um and so She was saying there was a slain of the Midianites, and then Moses came back and he. I guess the soldiers came back with some of the children And Moses allowed them to keep the virgin women and slay all the children. Is that correct?

There's stuff like that that's happened.

Some, yes, some, no, different things with the Midianites and different groups. And the atheists bring this up. Yeah. Okay.

Now, what I'll do with them is I'll say, What are the exact references in the scriptures that you want me to look at? First thing I do, where's the exact stuff? And we might find references. And that, okay, references to the Midianites, okay. And so, let's just say that there's these things that the word God has people killed: little ones, old ones.

The virgins are allowed to be retained in different contexts, different times. They're going to say stuff like this, okay? And then I say, okay, there it is. No one asks, that's enough. I'm going to ask you guys a question.

and say Is God wrong for doing that? That's it. I'm just going to ask them. What are they going to say? Yeah, he's wrong.

Okay.

So you're saying he's wrong as an atheist.

Now can you tell me what universal moral standard you have? that you can then say what somebody else does is right or wrong. What's your universal standard of morality? Because you're assuming that you have the right to judge.

Now, you have an opinion, and Mr. Atheist, if you have an opinion, right? You're entitled to your opinion. I just say thank you for your opinion.

Now what do you want to talk about? No, they God's wrong.

Well, that's your opinion. Does it mean it's true or false?

So what's your universal standard of morality? They don't like this. because they can't answer it.

Okay.

Right. Because, well, what they're using is the morality that. is foundational on God's nature to Argue, is that kind of your point? No, that's what's called what I did there was say. The issue was called an external critique.

And so they are then saying that the Bible itself is a document and they're going to impose their moral values on it. That's an external critique. If they're a little savvy and know better than to do that, because they've been tackled and hammered by competent apologists, then they will try and go to the internal critique. And then that falls as well.

So the internal critique is simple. That the people who warred against God, who are in great sin, all people are under the judgment of God. And so God has the right to execute anybody He wants any time because all have sinned against Him. And so nothing but His mercy allows them to live, including little ones and adults and old people, uncles and aunts.

So, if you're going to say to me that I tell them, I ask them, or I state this to them: if you're going to tell me there's an inconsistency in the scriptures, show me the verse. and the other verse that contradict each other, And go ahead. And I'd say, I'm waiting for you. And they can they never do it. They can't.

Well, I was kind of thinking about another group, the Canaanites. Uh-huh. Depraved, they were, you know, they were offering children sacrifice, you know, to the ball. Carpal or whatever's Yeah, to bomb. Yeah.

So you know, in doing that, If God chooses to use violence and Um Do we lose you? Yeah, we lost him. He'll probably call right back. And this is a common complaint that atheists have. They don't realize that what they are doing is proposing a personal view and saying their personal view is the right one.

Even if other atheists join in and say, well, that's the right one to have, how do you know it's the right one? They do not like this kind of Of response to them. They call it evasion. I say, wait a minute, it's not evasion. You're the one who's making a truth claim.

You're saying it's morally wrong.

Okay.

Why is it morally wrong? You're the one making it. I'm asking, please demonstrate why it is. Because I'm not going to just assume that your assertion is valid. Why is the Christian God, the God of the Old Testament, why is He mean?

Why is he wrong? Why is he whatever? The judgment of the Canaanites was not simply ethnic cleansing. It was covenantal judicial sentence executed. And God had been patient with them for like 400 years, warning them.

You know, stop this idolatry. And so Exceptions were even made for individuals who turned out of them to. to the true God. You know, the Rabah Rahab is an example.

So Israel's failure to complete the judgment produced the catastrophical results that God had predicted would happen later on. You said, Get him rid of them. One of the reasons God was so difficult with people in the Old Testament is because the enemy of the gospel, Satan, is always trying to bring his servants to bear against the people of God. In the Old Testament it was to destroy the messianic line, to destroy this people of God.

So the prophecies of God would fail, and God would be shown to be a liar. This is the attempt of the devil in that context. Afterward, he is trying to do other things to thwart people coming to Christ. But in the Old Testament, the main idea is that what God was doing was executing judgment upon people who were wicked, and his patience had run out with him. He said, Okay, wipe them out.

And so he did. And the atheists come along and say, well, that's wrong. Why is it wrong? And then I'll ask him a question. Another question after I hammer them on this politeness say, Well, you don't have any foundation.

I say, so do you believe in abortion? And they always go, Of course. When I say no, oh, so that's morally right to kill the life, a human life in the womb? That's just for what has it done? You complain on one hand, and then you have a double standard on another.

Why the hypocrisy? And I don't, I handle them. I mean, I put this in their face. And so, on one hand, they cannot demonstrate or ground what's called an external critique against the God of the Scriptures morally, because they don't have a universal standard. They can't ground a self-contradictory system within the Bible because, well, context is always what relieves these issues.

Third, they don't understand that their hypocrisy is before them because they want to support the idea of a woman's right to choose to kill the life in them. And then they'll say to me, Well, wait a minute, it's not a human life. And I say, It's not. Does it have human DNA?

Well, the skin cell has human DNA. Granted, it does. It has human DNA.

So you're saying then that the fertilized egg is not human, right? That's correct.

Okay, when does it become human? That's the question. When does it become human?

Well, it becomes human sometime later. Oh, and what's your opinion? and is your opinion the right one?

Now they're back on their heels again. and all they can do is swing it air. And another question I'll ask him is, well, why is what you say the standard of when something becomes human, and what changes the nature from non-human to human?

So are you saying human life comes out of non-human life? And Can you explain a mechanism how this works? Because if you don't know when a baby in the womb becomes human, then you shouldn't risk killing it, should you? You might kill a human. But that's okay for you.

because your hypocrisy is before you. Oh, I I I get on on a on the Pro boards. And I don't I don't grant to them Uh the things a lot of people are gonna grant to them. Anyway, there you go. Hey, we got one more break, and then the end of the show in about 15 minutes.

If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick Live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, and welcome back to the show.

If you want to give me a call, you can. The number is 877-207-2276. I wonder if you would give me a call. All right, so we have nobody waiting online, and I could get to some emails. Let me.

Let me talk a little bit more about the science stuff, because you don't get to talk about that very often. A lot of people believe in evolutionary theory and um i and that somehow it has to work with uh with the Bible. And that they will very often what they'll do is say that the Bible is um Needs to be checked against scripture. No, scripture I just could be I blew that one, didn't I? The Bible needs to be checked against scripture.

The Bible needs to be checked against science. And that's not true. Science is, a lot of people don't know. It's a philosophical approach because science presupposes what's called the uniformity of nature. In other words, the way things act and perform and behave mechanically here on Earth is the same way it'll be on Mars and in Alpha Centauri and in the Andromeda Galaxy, et cetera.

Yeah. And it's just an assumption. And also the assumption uh that they have is the universality of the truth of the laws of logic. These are philosophical Assumptions.

Well Okay.

So, then, what validates these assumptions? And that's another question. We won't get into all that, because that gets into philosophy and logic regarding the Word of God. I can get into that quite a bit, but won't. And so, we have questions about how this works, particularly in the in the human fossil record.

A lot of people don't know. That uh A lot of people know there's a lot of problems in it. And for example, we have Australopithecus, excuse me. And uh Some say that they are the ancestors of our own, the homogeneous. And I remember reading an article once which I thought was really interesting.

And this article talked about using computers. to generate images of Of adults from childhood pictures. And they have a lot of childhood pictures from millions all over the country and the world with adults. And they could. put this information into computers and get a pattern.

of how you can make someone look.

Okay.

Okay, that's fine.

Well, someone said, hey, Well, if that's what they look like at forty. Or at 50 or at 60, what would it look like at 200 years old, 300 years old, 400, 500 years old? and to their surprise they started looking like Neanderthals. I remember that article. They said, man, they look like Neanderthals, large brows.

And. These jawlines and stuff. Anyway, so I remember that article, and I thought it was very fascinating.

So Cro-Magnum, for example, bones of Cro-Magnum have been found in caves in France or dated to 50,000 years ago. Cro-magnum brain size is larger than the modern man.

Well, wait a minute, I thought we had the largest brains. Especially not if you're a Democrat, you wouldn't. But anyway, that's another thing. Then there's what's called uh Uh ergaster, homo ergaster. Experts do not know what finally They do not know what finally, some five million years ago after the dawn of humans, what prompted the ancestors to spread out from the original continent.

They don't know. Then there's the Homo habilis. The poorly known species closely resembles Australopithecus. It might belong to the same genus. Uh Neanderthals, right?

First found in Belgium in 1829. Whether or not they're interbred with Homo sapiens is a debate. Java man Uh was a found as a skull cap, teeth and a femur about sixty feet from each other. These were said to belong to the same Muhammad ancestor, was about 500,000 years old. And the guy who discovered this, a guy named Du Bois Du Bois, excuse me, he failed to mention he had found two human skulls nearby in virtually the same level of burial.

And Neanderthal, let's see, that was Java man. Neanderthal man, the first bones of Neanderthal man were found in Dusseldorf, Germany, 1856. And they indicated a stooped posture. And he said to be one step from an ape, dated around 200,000 years later, they found us just to be a guy with arthritis. Nebraska man.

In 1922, a geologist named Cook found a tooth in the Snake Creek bed of Nebraska. Professor Osborne of the New York Museum and Sir Smith of London said it belonged to an ape man. Later it was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Peking Man, 1922-1939, bones of 38 individuals were discovered at. Oh, I'm going to try and say this.

Chalkotain.

Southwest of Peking, and sorry for those who know how to pronounce it, and I messed it up. Experts in several countries said these belonged to ape men and uh Later the claim is uh when the hill collapsed, the mixture of bones was used to create an ape man. It was a mixture of of bones from a collapsed area where they were all intermixed. Pilt down man Not Charles Darwin, but Charles Dawson, and others found a skull cap, jawbone, and teeth in a gravel pit in Sussex, England. From these they constructed an innate man and named him Piltdown or Don Mann from five hundred thousand years ago.

And 1953 British Museum A British scientist discovered the jawbone belonged to a monkey. and had been stained to indicate age. The teeth have been filed to make it look human. Mm-hmm. Oh, let's see if I can even pronounce this one.

Sahilanthropus Uh chick condensed and so that's a hard one 'cause of the The earliest uh hominid And um So far, the only skull and jaw remain have been found, although some researchers believe the details of these the base of the skull suggests bipedalism. Rhubopithecus, I can go on and on. Australopithecines, Xendanthropas, Homo habilis. Homo rectus, sapiens, hum and stuff. And so there are lots of accounts of of these things.

You go to a museum, a natural history museum, and they'll show these these uh the pictures a lot of times of from small to big. And they'll say this is our human ancestor line. And I laugh at it because I know, I know better. I know that this is a lot of conjecture, a lot of guesswork. If they were to say this is a theory based on conjecture and inference.

At least that would be m more scientifically accurate. But they cannot demonstrate that there is a connection between them. They just assert that they are. It's like the Eohippus, the ancestor of the horse. A lot of people don't know that.

I read this in an article in a journal years and years ago. I remember this very clearly. You might see those horse drawings, from a small horse to a big horse. See, that's how it is.

Well Um For one, as I said earlier in the show, it's called homology. And y it the reason they put them in that line is because they look like they belong together. Homology Does it look like it? They're the same. And same so they look like it.

That's how you know. That's not science. And so I read an article where it says two of the Eohippus lines from small to big are actually switched geographically in the actual fossil record that they have said is the case. And And but it's not Not brought up. 'Cause it goes from small to big.

Why does it go from small to big to small, then to big? And You're here about that. There's all kinds of stuff. One of the things that I think is the most oh, yeah, that reminds me. The Drake equation.

And I saw it last night, I was going through videos and clips and movies and things like that. And this guy was talking to a girl, and I just rolled my eyes. And according to the Drake equation, blah, blah, blah. How many, in fact, I'm going to do a search right now. Uh see, according, let's see, to the Drake equation, how many possible Spell is right.

Civilizations. are in the universe, okay? This is um This was something proposed by an astrophysicist. The rate of star formation per year, the fraction of stars with planets, etc., and the fraction where life actually develops. And this is just what's given out there.

So they say Drake's own original estimate of ten civilizations in the Milky Way Is there, and if we have billions and billions and billions or trillions of galaxies. then we necessarily have trillions of civilizations out there in the in the universe. And everybody looks at it and goes, oh, that's really interesting. Except uh It's not a a scientific calculation. It's a framework to organize what they don't know.

They don't know. They don't know how many new stars are actually formed in all the galaxies. They don't know the average size of galaxies. They don't know if life can form by chance. It's just an assumption.

And then they ignore The um The mathematical challenges to abiogenesis. With deoxyrabonucleic acid coming together to form nucleotide bond pairs that form molecules that have formed to. Forms of life. Let's just skip that and get back to Chris from Idaho. Hey, Chris, welcome back.

You're on the air, man. Hey, sorry about that. Yeah, I got disconnected. Yeah, so you were just basically saying that. the uh atheists really don't have any plays because Don't you think a lot of it comes to lack of perspective?

Like God has a great, like He can see all things beginning to end.

So You know, it's kind of his right to act at his will if he decides that. Unfortunately, these people are not listening. And they're corrupt, there's a moral decay within these societies, and it's going to basically. Um Okay. You know, because I think you referenced, like, you know, obviously Satan is this great deceiver, so he's leading these people astray into adultery, idiotry, like a dog.

Um But uh Is that kind of what your point there? Yeah, it's one of the points. There's lots of ways to tackle atheists when they bring up the issue of what is right and wrong. And I have tricks to show that they're inconsistent, logic tricks and things like this. Maybe that's why atheists don't want to call up anymore.

I don't know. They don't want to have these discussions. But over the years, it's been very easy to dismantle a lot of the atheist objections to the behavior of God in the Bible. Because they don't have like I said, they don't have a a standard that's universal and they're just imposing their uh intuitional ideas on the text and they don't know the historical context. Like uh the the uh Canaanites, the basically they they were born for like four hundred years.

And finally, God said, So they don't know these things. And then they'll bring up slavery also. And they'll say, which kind of slavery? What kind? you know, 'cause there's different kinds.

Which one is it you're talking about? Which verses are you talking about? And I have a whole thing on slavery as well. But at any rate, so but people like to complain. We like to.

Well, I want to make another point. And I've heard you have discussions with other atheists about morality and everything.

So the double standard part aspect of it. Likely. you know, it can change based on circumstance, right? To a degree, yes. If somebody's holding a gun to you, you know, trying to kill your family, you obviously have a right to defend them.

Right. Yeah. So how do we not you know what I mean? Like maybe that's the angle that with guys taking action during these times, it's kind of the same idea. it is to protect the Messianic line in the Old Testament.

That's what's going on, so you'd be redeemed. And then I say to them, we've got to go because we're out of time, but I'll say to them, hey, when Adam and Eve started behaving like atheists in the garden, making moral judgments on their own, that's when things got bad. I'll leave him with that. Right. Gotta go, brother.

All right.

Out of time. All right.

Good chat. All right, man. God bless. God bless. Okay.

Hey folks, we are out of time. May the Lord bless you by His grace. We're back on here tomorrow. Please remember we stay on the air by your support. All you gotta do is go to carm.org, look at the top of the page, donate.

And we would just love it if you help us out. $5, $10, $15 a month. May the Lord bless you and by His grace. We'll back on the air tomorrow. Talk to you then.

Have a good one, everyone. God bless. Another program powered by the Truth Network.