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 karm.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick live!

Francis, 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. You're listening to Matt Slick live and today is August 3rd, 2023 for the podcasters and you guys can know that we are live. The radio station had a problem with their phones and they're trying to work on that and fix that and that's what happened.

So it wasn't any big deal. But we are on live now. If you want to give me a call, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. Give me a call. And let's see. Let's see. I had a discussion. I did have a discussion on Tuesday. It was the first. Tuesday was the first. That's right. I had a discussion on the Trinity and since that was Tuesday in the evening. That's right.

Trying to get my schedule right. Yesterday, yesterday the phones weren't working so it wasn't on. So I guess now, but I haven't talked about this already. If any of you heard or watched that discussion slash debate that I had with a guy and you want to comment, I'm curious to know what you thought of it. I can certainly give my feedback on what I thought were some of the issues and stuff.

So there you go. Hey, I'd like to hear you. And we'll call about anything. 877-207-2276. The last four numbers spell CARM on your phone. CARM.org.

That's the website. And I've got to let you know. And I've been having discussions with people about this and I don't like, I really don't. I honestly don't like asking for donations and stuff like that. But I need to let you guys know that we do need your support. And if you'd be so kind as to consider supporting us. And I've been asking $5 a month and a lot of people just say, no, it's just not enough.

I need to ask like 20. So I'm going to start doing that. And I'm almost apologizing for this. I should not be.

And people will say, no, don't apologize. You know, but, uh, I just don't like asking for money, but Hey, I'm just gonna let you know that we do stay on the air by your support. You know what? $20 would be awesome. If you got four $20 a month, all you gotta do is go to CARM.org forward slash donate, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G forward slash donate. And if you get fed here, I heard a preacher once say, you don't go to McDonald's and buy something there and then go pay at Burger King. And that was a good point. You know, if you're getting fed here, if you're learning, please consider supporting us because we stay on the air by your support.

That's it. And we keep the ministry running by your support. And this is just one of the avenues I used to help raise funds and to try and do that kind of a thing. So I'm just asking if you'd be so kind as to support us at $20 a month.

We have a lot of different offers on that URL of forward slash donate. And if you'd be so kind, like I said, all right, there you go. Okay. Hey, well, let's just jump on the phones here. Let's give it a shot. Let's talk to Orlando from High Point, Orlando.

Welcome. You're on the air. Hey, what's up, Slick? Hey, what's up, Slick? I like that.

That's funny. I'm doing okay, man. I'm doing okay. So what do you got, buddy? I got a question about end times. Okay. Because I know I know you're a all-millennialism. All-millennialism. You believe that we're living in the millennium. Right. I believe the future millennium is not really future.

It's figurative. So your end time scenario is completely different than mine. Okay.

All right. So how do you define Hosea 6? When he talks about after two days, you know, believing after two days, after 2000 years, I will wake you up and then you will be with me forever.

How do you define that? I mean, there are all the passages that define that when you talk about 1000 years. Well, see, this is Hosea 6. You're talking about Hosea 6-2, I think. He will revive us after two days.

He will raise us up on the third day that we will live before him. So let us know. Let us press on. Is that what you're talking about? Yes, sir.

You're talking about the Jewish people right there. Okay. Yeah. It doesn't say that those are 1000 years. It just says the days. Yeah, but when you look at it, when you look at it, the whole thing in the Old Testament and New Testament, when you talk about a day, it's also 1000 years. Well, yeah, but if God created the heavens and earth in six days... What do you mean? If God created the heavens and earth in six days, does it mean he took 6000 years? Would you go that way too? He might have had.

It might have? Okay. Well, what I do is I look at the context of what the Bible says when you go to Revelation 20. And it said, I saw an angel coming down from heaven. So I would assume it's a literal angel literally coming down from heaven.

I don't have any problem with that. But it says an angel. Yeah, that's right. Holding the key of the abyss. Now, it's not a literal key. You know, like a metal key you put into a lock.

It's not like that, okay? A key to the abyss and a great chain in his hand. It's not a literal chain. These are figurative usages. So right away in the first verse, we have an angel, that's literal.

Heaven, literal. Key and chain, figurative. And he laid hold of the dragon, that's figurative. The serpent of old, I'd say that's literal. Who is a devil and Satan, that's literal, and bound him for 1000 years.

Is the 1000 years literal? Okay, okay. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. You're going too fast. Oh, okay.

Well, I am slick, but go ahead. Why did you change from figurative to literally back and forth? Because that's what it says. Look, then I saw an angel come down from heaven. I would say that that's literal. A literal angel coming down literally from heaven. And the angel is holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.

It's not a key, but it's something that is holding something to lock the devil down. There you go. There you go. There you go.

I have no problem with that. So it's not a literal key. It's not a literal chain, is it? But it's something, some power that he's got. I got you. I agree with you. I agree with you.

No dispute. Therefore, key and chain are figurative representations of something, of the power, of it. It's not a literal key. It's not a literal chain. We would say it's a literal angel coming down literally from heaven, but we wouldn't say it's a literal key and a literal chain. In verse 2, he laid hold of the dragon. It's not a literal dragon, but the next phrase, the serpent of old.

Well, we know what that means. That's the devil and the serpent in the garden, the serpent. That's literal.

Who is the devil and Satan. That's literal. And bounding for a thousand years. Now, the question is, is the thousand years? Hold on, hold on.

Go back, go back. You said how many years did he bound him for? A thousand years. The question is, is the thousand years?

Okay, are you listening? The question is, is the word thousand literal or figurative? Well, it depends on who's interpreted it.

No, it just isn't. You can't tell from the text, the context, if it is either one. Too many people will just assume the word thousand here means a literal period of years. But you'll find out that the word thousand occurs numerous times in a figurative context. So a day is a thousand years, a thousand years is but a day. It's a figurative usage of the word thousand. Or God owns the cattle on a thousand hills.

What about a thousand and one hills? It's a figurative usage of the word thousand. That's what I'm saying. So how do you know that here it's literal?

How do you know? Because all throughout the Bible it talks about, it talks about like the day of the Lord. Like he created, he created everything in seven days. Six days. And he rested on the seventh. Yeah, six days.

Six days he rested on the seventh. Right. So that depicts like six thousand years. Okay. From the beginning. Well, let some people say that.

So at the end of six thousand years, it will come back. No. No. I'll show you why.

You ready? Okay, show me why. Okay.

Now, I have to ask a question. In the pre-millennial view, there's a thousand year period. No, I'm not pre-millennial.

Well, what are you? I'm pre-ramp. Okay, so do you believe in a literal thousand year reign of Christ? A literal one thousand years? Yes. Okay, so that period of time, at the beginning of it, is when the rapture occurs, sometime right before it, right? Is that right?

Right before, yes. And after the thousand years, the new heavens and new earth are made, right? Yes, that's what the Bible says. Okay, now, what I'm going to do is go to the scriptures and I'm going to read and let's see, okay?

Okay. First Thessalonians 4, 16. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout. Now, that's Jesus coming down from heaven. With the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God and the dead in Christ will rise first. So there's going to be a rapture. The people who died in faith beforehand are going to be resurrected first, okay? You're reading First Thessalonians 4, 17 or something around there, right?

16, yes. And now I'm going to go to verse 17. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall always be with the Lord. Yes. We shall be with the rapture before the thousand years begins, according to that view, right?

Right? Okay, so you believe in the rapture. Oh, of course I do. But this view says, the view you're holding says that the rapture occurs before the thousand years. Well, let's continue reading what Paul says. He says, therefore, comfort one another with these words. Now, as to the times and the epics, brethren, and when this is going to occur, he's talking about the times and the epics.

You have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night, right? So the rapture is like the day of the Lord to come like a thief in the night, right? Did you jump to Second Thessalonians just now?

No, no, I just kept reading. You just kept reading because Second Thessalonians says that, chapter 2. I know what it says in Second Thessalonians 2, but that's on the return of Christ too, but this is about the rapture. This is the rapture, First Thessalonians 4, starting at verse 16. The chapter break isn't in the Greek. We don't stop at the chapter break.

We keep reading. In chapter 5, verse 1, Paul says, as to the times and the epics, of what? Of when Jesus comes back, when the rapture occurs. He says, you know that full well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. That he's talking about the day of the Lord is the day of the rapture, right?

That's what he's talking about. Now, let me ask you a question. Well, hold on, hold on. I'll show you.

I'm going to show you this, though. Do you see what he's doing? What Paul's doing?

He's calling the return of Christ and the rapture, he's calling it the day of the Lord. Right there. Same thing, yes. Good.

I agree with that. Now, look at this. This is 2 Peter 3.10. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. That's the same day. The day of the Lord will come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat and the earth and its work will be burned up.

So let the fire come down. According to the scriptures, the day of the Lord will come like a thief is when the rapture occurs. It's also when the new heavens and new earth are made. It's the same day.

There can be no literal thousand year duration between them. Hold on now. We've got a break, okay? Hey, folks.

Have a break. And if you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Okay. Well, we're back. So I did it again. I read stuff during the break.

We'll get back to Orlando here in a second. But I read stuff at the break. Okay, so here's a lead you up to it. It totally cracked me up. So I'm trying to lay off that sugar, right? So I made some coffee and I put some dairy creamer in it without any sugar and stuff like that. I just softened it up.

I put some electrolytes in there. Bad idea. This is a bad idea. So I texted him. It's a bad idea.

Don't do that. One guy humbled Clay. He writes, he likes his coffee like he likes his women. Bitter. Totally cracked me up. Oh, man.

I love jokes like that. Okay. I got to calm down.

That was awesome. All right, Orlando, you're back on the air. Okay. So Orlando, do you see my point that I was making?

You there? Oh, maybe he's gone. I don't know. I guess he is gone.

Maybe he got raptured. Oh, no. I hope that's not the case. So anyway, folks, if you want to talk, if you want to talk to me about that. I love laughing. I have a good sense of humor. I really do. And one of the books I've written literally is how to woo and win women by being an obnoxious jerk.

And it's on Amazon. And so, you know, I love to joke around and have fun. And all my friends know that. And it's a lot of fun. So I get serious, but I have a lot of fun too. If someone says something good. Oh, that was good.

Maybe laugh. Okay. Now I got to get myself together here. Let's get back on here. Let's talk to Joseph from Utah. Joseph, welcome. You're on the air. Hey. Thanks for taking my call. Okay. So the question I have is I heard your message the other day about saying stay away from the assembly of God church for the guy you were talking to the other day.

Now, I could, when it's not here in Utah, should I stay away from that one too? Or is it just a specific one? A what? Which one? I missed the word. What kind of church?

The assembly of the God church. Yeah. You want to stay away from there. Stay away from God? Yeah. Stay away from AOG. Yes. They're also doing the same thing as Nazarenes.

They're going bad. Okay. So what kind of church would you recommend here in the state of Utah for a Christian believer like myself? What city are you in? I'm near Orem and Provo.

You're down there. Well, I know of a good church in Provo. Okay. And if Laura would type in and rumble the name of it, I can tell it to you.

I forgot the name. I've preached her a couple of times. It's a small church and they are good. It's good folks.

Okay. So there's in Provo. Now in Orem, I don't know anything is an Orem. However, I can tell you that if you were to go to... Charlie, what's the URL to find a church? There it is, tms.edu forward slash find a church.

So if you go to tms, the masters seminary.edu, just tms.edu. And there's a link there, find a church. And then you can put in your zip code and you can find some decent churches. It's a good little ministry there.

Okay. So, City on a Hill, and that's the name of the church that's in Provo. And it's 105 East 100th North.

I don't know if that makes any difference, but City on a Hill. And the pastor there, I've heard him preach, he's a good guy. And there are good people there.

There really are. It's a small church. I don't know how many people are in there.

30, 40, 50 range. In the church? City on a Hill. City on a Hill. 105 East 100 North.

Okay, in Provo. Check them out. The one thing I like about Peter Crow is he's very black and white.

There's no gray area with what he was teaching. But it's just for me, every time I go to a church, I try to find a new church. And they always seem to have their little clicks. So I never feel like I've been in anywhere.

You won't feel that there. When I've been there, they're warm, they're open. You go downstairs often afterwards, we talk. And people are just, hey, how's it going? And whatever. And it's nice. And then Laura, who works with Carm, is there with her husband.

And they do worship on the thing. And you can go up and just ask for Laura. You can talk to Laura.

She'll say, hey, how you doing? Okay. You can try it. And if you like the church, great.

If you don't, that's okay. But I would go to TMS.edu. And you can look up finding a church there. And maybe you'll find something better that suits you better, closer.

Who knows? But, okay, there's something in Provo. All right? All right.

Well, thank you so much. And God bless you. And you have a wonderful rest of your day. You too, Joseph. Let me know what you find.

Let me know what happens. Okay? Just call back and go, hey. All right. Thank you. All right, buddy. God bless.

All right. Hey, there's Orlando calling back. Hey, Orlando, what happened, buddy? We lost you. No, you hang up on me. No, I didn't. I didn't hang up on you. I don't believe I did.

I might have accidentally, but I just put you on hold as we do. I know I got some tough questions, sir. That's okay.

After you answered this stuff, okay, I agree with about 90% off of it. But what are you going to do with Ezekiel 40 to 48? Well, hold on, hold on.

I'll try to show you something. And did you get the bit about the day of the Lord that comes like a thief? It's a single day. And on that day is when the rapture occurs.

On that day is when the new heavens and new earth are made. That's what the Bible teaches. Yeah. So how can you have a thousand years? Yeah, but he could be a thousand years too, right? No. How do you have a thousand years between the two events that are on the same day?

Okay. It's God's timing, not us. Dude, you don't say that. You don't say it's God's timing, not us. He's saying that this is the same day that both events, the rapture and the creation of the heavens and the earth, occur on the same day. Yeah, but it could be that it starts and then it lasts a thousand years. We don't know.

We're just speculating. It's just like Adam. When Adam died, if you eat this fruit, you will die. The day that you do, you will die. They did die.

Adam lived 930 years? Yeah, you make a mistake assuming that dying means only physical. You made a mistake there. So the death that he's taught, but you have to understand the death that he did die because God said the day that you're going to die. He said so. Now you're saying he didn't die.

But he died in one day. Well, hold on. You're saying God got it wrong. You've got to realize what you're saying. No, no. I never said that. You were saying that. No, no, no.

Listen, listen. Did Adam die the day he ate the fruit? Did he die the day he ate the fruit? No, he died spiritually. So then he died.

That's what it means. Physical death is simply the manifestation of spiritual death. But how long did he live? Okay, you're not hearing me.

He lived for hundreds of years. I'm hearing you, but I'm also asking questions at the same time. But you're not listening.

You're not listening. He died because God said he would. He died the day he ate.

How long did he live? Okay, we're going to move along. You're not listening. Hey, folks, there's a break, and we're going to go. We don't have anybody waiting. If you want to, give me a call, 877-207-2276. We'll be right back. Please stay tuned. Welcome back to the show. We've got a couple of issues.

We don't have anybody waiting right now on call, so I'm going to go through some of the text that we've got going. Let's see, one person in, let's see, Susanna says, doesn't see the problem with the chain and the key being literal. The problem with them being literal is that a chain is made of metal, and he's a spiritual being, and there isn't a literal key. A literal key requires a literal lock, and is there a door or some cage or something that the abyss is in, and the angel has to have a key, an actual key?

No, it wouldn't work like that, so that's why we say those things are figurative, because that's what it requires, but it's speaking of a real action, that's true, but the key and the chain are not literal keys and chains. All right, and let's see, do you want to hear about the Nazarenes? All right, the Nazarene church I wouldn't trust anymore that could throw an elephant, and the reason I say that is because I live, as far as the crow flies, probably straight line, probably three, maybe four miles from Northwest Nazarene College. Years ago, I had to go out there and protest out in front of the college because they had the author of The Shack out there, and The Shack book, which was very popular ten years or so ago, is just full of heresies, and it really is.

It's not just my little I don't like it, so I'm going to say it's bad. No, it really had some bad stuff in it, and it really did, and I wasn't the only one who identified it, and I even talked to him on the phone. I met him in person, the author, and Paul Young, and I said, look, we've got to talk about this, and he wasn't interested, and so it's one warning flag.

Plus, I have a friend who is a mailman, and he goes to that area, and he has regular contact with a lot of people there, and so he's telling me some of the stuff that's been going on over the years, and I've been involved with some of the stuff going on over the years, and let's just say that the Northwest Nazarene University is going really bad. And so once I met some girls and a couple of guys who were in the theology program. They were studying Christian theology, and I said, really?

You're studying Christian theology, right? And they said, yeah. And I said, okay, can I ask you some theology questions? And they said, sure. And I said, okay, is Jesus a man right now? No, which was a wrong answer. I said, okay, did Jesus die on the cross?

They said, yes, good. He was raised in the dead of the same body he died in, another set of crickets. What's a trinity? They weren't sure how to define the trinity. This is the theology department, and these kids were in, and they couldn't understand the very, very basics. And so that's just some of it. Plus, there's a guy there that I was supposed to debate, have a written debate in a local paper, and he agreed to do it, then he backed out, and he was a liberal guy, and I said, let's discuss.

And so I've offered to come on campus and teach, to do various things. They're not going to have it because the Nazarenes are just hyper-Arminian, semi-Pelagian, and believe in women pastors and elders, and usually within two generations, any group that affirms that, 80% of the time, in my research, 80% of the time, they affirm homosexuality. So there you go, bad news.

And I wouldn't recommend the Nazarene church any more than I could throw a Nazarene church building. Okay, let's see, let's see, let's see. Let's get to Elijah from Pennsylvania.

Elijah, welcome. You're on the air. Hey, what's up, man? How you doing? Doing all right. Hanging in there, man, hanging in there. More hanging than in there, but I'm hanging in there.

So what do you got? My question is what are your thoughts on the Assyrian church? You broke up the what? Oh, I said what are your thoughts on the Assyrian church?

You're breaking up, you're breaking up. Did you say, I don't even know, Assyrian church? Is that what you said? Yes, yeah, like what are your thoughts on that church? The fact that they're Mediterranean and they also believe in Nestorianism, just like the one that's believed in Nestorianism. Yeah, that would, yeah, that's, yeah, Nestorianism is a false teaching. And I'll explain why, okay? So for those who don't know, I've got to lay the foundation down.

I'll explain. Now, anyway, the Hypostatic Union is the teaching that in the single person of Christ is two distinct natures and that the two natures don't speak or work independently as though there's two persons. In other words, the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the one person and Jesus is one person with two distinct natures.

That's the Hypostatic Union. Nestorianism is a position that within the body of Christ, there is a divine person and a human person and that they work together and then produce speech out of Jesus. That's a low-level way of saying it. So that Nestorianism, that latter position is heretical. The reason it is is because you can have in Nestorian thought, you can have a problem, and I'll go to it.

And I just did this in this debate I was in with a guy on Tuesday. And so when you go to John 637, all that the Father gives me, so I'll ask, who's the Father? And then the oneness people will say it's God the Father will give me, well, that's the human nature. So they have a Nestorian view that the human nature and the divine nature can communicate to each other in the body of Christ. So it would be the Father will give me, the human nature, all who come to me, that's the human nature, I will not cast out, for I have kingdom from heaven. That's the divine nature, kingdom from heaven. Not to do my own will, but that's the human nature, but the will of him who sent me.

So what they have happening is that each nature is alternately speaking. Not to do my own will, that's the human nature speaking, but the will of him who sent me. That's the divine nature.

Because he said himself. So the problem here is that when you have this kind of ridiculous position, then when we have the issue of which nature died on the cross, is it the human nature or the divine nature? Well, obviously only the human nature could die. But in Nestorianism, it's the human person that died. So how then is the sacrifice of divine value if only the human person died? In the Hypostatic Union view, where Jesus is one person with two natures, the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person. So the single person says, all the Father gives me will come to me. That's just Jesus speaking, the one person.

And it would not be an alternate form. The human nature speaks and the divine nature speaks. So with the Hypostatic Union, you have a true divine sacrifice because the attributes of the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person. The single person died on the cross, therefore the sacrifice is of divine value. Nestorianism negates the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice. Okay? There's a lot there. So does that mean that the people who belong to the Eucharistic East, they don't have a sacrifice of divine value, right?

Now, there's a yes and a no. Because what I just said is theology that connects the dots. And I could teach it again, I could teach it slowly to people, you know, take them a half hour, go through the doctrines. But the average person doesn't know this kind of stuff. So the average person doesn't understand, for example, that Jesus has two distinct natures, diphthalatism, you know, the communicatio idiomatum, inseparable operations. They don't understand all these things. They just believe in Jesus. They could be certainly saved and not understand that the official doctrine leads to serious problems. So I would say official Assyrian doctrine, if they're Nestorian, is heretical.

That's not to say that all who are in the Assyrian church are not believers, are not redeemed, okay? Right, yeah, I get you. Okay. So what I'm doing is arguing technically, the technical precision, why these are important.

But it doesn't mean everybody understands those or participates in those technical divisions. All right? Right, right. All right. Okay. Also, did you get my email that I sent you, I think it was yesterday or the other day, when you were having a debate with the oneness guy.

I sent you two screenshots of what R.N. Rod said. He said he would be glad to have a discussion with you. Yeah, and he wanted to do it on phylogeny.

Which is just, all it is, all phylogeny is, it's called the phylogenetic tree and how they relate organisms to each other using homology and sometimes cladistics and epigenetics and things like that. But hold on, buddy, we've got a break coming up, okay? Hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages, please. Stay tuned. Music It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody, welcome back to the show. I want to give thanks to Mr. Kidd for a $12 rant on Rumble. Thanks a lot, buddy, appreciate it.

And if you want to give me a call, we have four open lines, 877-207-2276. Let's get back on with Elijah. Welcome, everyone, here. Yep, I'm back.

I'm still here. All right, so, yeah, the issue here of phylogeny is just an arrangement of things. And there's an old phrase in embryology, or basically ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. And that means the ontogeny deals with the issue in the phases of evolution, as is sometimes said to be, representative of embryology and the development of things in the womb. And that's one of the things that was out there.

I don't know where he's at and stuff like that. So, because Darwin proposed that. But, I mean, let's start a debate about phylogeny. It's just like this goes there, that goes there in the phylogenetic tree. Well, all I'd be doing is say, well, how do you know? Because it looks like it, that's called homology, and that's not science.

Now, if they go with genetics, then I'd have to bone up on the counter evidence to that, because there is counter evidence in the issue of genetics, because it's just not so, we'll get into it, it's just not as easy as it sounds. So I don't know what he'd want to discuss. I mean, what's his thing about phylogeny?

That's what I'm curious about. Okay. And you said you read the screenshots of what he said, right, in your email? Yeah, back then, yeah, it's something I forgot, though, because I read it, but okay, and I moved on. But phylogeny is just categorization in the theory of evolution, how people put things together in the tree, you know.

Primates over there, and hominids over here, and mollusks over here, or kinidae over there, things like that. I'm confused, though, because you told me that he refused to debate you, and now he's saying that you're the one that refused to debate him. Don't trust him, don't trust him. He and I had a discussion, I don't know how many years ago, and I really got him upset by saying that he believes in faith, he has faith in things, and he didn't like that. And then there have been other people who have known him, who have communicated to me, and I said, look, he and I could have a discussion on this stuff, on universals, on truth values, on various things, and they said he wouldn't debate me. I said, okay. So for him to say I won't debate him is just not accurate, okay.

He's an atheist, and I just don't trust that individual that much. So there you go, all right. But to debate phylogeny, it's like, well, what about it? All it is is just you've seen the evolution books, right, where they have a tree upside down kind of tree, roots, whatever it is, and they'll have hominids on one side and dinosaurs over there, reptiles here, just different categories.

That's what phylogeny is. So what's he saying? What about it? What's your debate about it?

Go ahead. Well, he was basically saying that you don't know anything about science and that you won't be able to debate it. That's what he was saying in the text. Well, to say I don't know anything about science is not true, but maybe he is familiar, I'm sure he is familiar, with the issue of phylogeny better than I am.

Okay, but now what? What's the exact debate topic? That's what I always want to know is what is the exact topic to debate, and the topic is really important. If he wants to say something like phylogeny is an established fact, which I don't believe he would say, but if he said that, I could destroy him because it's not. If he said phylogeny is a conglomeration of opinions of scientists, I'd say, yes, that's what it is. You're right, but it doesn't mean it's true.

So what's the issue? This is why debate titles are specific. If he wants to debate me on if he's a materialist, for example, can his materialism account for evolution? And there's an easy way to beat him in that, easy way. So there's just different ways. And yes, phylogenics stuff is circular because it's homologous. Anyway, there's two basic ways of categorization. One is by how things look, and let me get my science thing open.

There's a word I'm trying to come up with, I'm not coming up with, but remember, I can't remember the word to find it. But homology just simply means, for example, a chimpanzee and a human have similar structures, so therefore they're related genetically. They're related in evolution.

So the problem is that just because something is similar in appearance doesn't mean that they evolved from a common ancestor. There's another view. I'm trying to look at the word.

I'm trying to find the word. I think I know where it is. And not there. No, it's not there.

I'm trying to find it. Anyway, I have so much to learn. It's homoplasy, that's right. Homoplasy, that's what I was looking for. Homology and homoplasy, where different species evolved, from their perspective, different species evolved similar traits independently rather than through common ancestry. Well, if that's the case, you'd have similar genetic forms undergirding those. So even with homoplasy, it doesn't necessitate that the phylogenetic tree is true. So then what they want to do is go to cladistics.

Cladistics deals with the issue of tracing genetic formations. Then they probably would want to go to ERVs, endogenous retroviruses. But there's problems with that, too. So, you know, it would just be interesting to have just a discussion with them. But I don't know what to debate, okay? All right. Yeah.

And one more thing before I go. I saw this video recently of this guy who's studying quantum physics, and he shows how there's evidence in quantum physics that actually proves that they're a creator. And if you learn this argument, I think you can use that again, because that's pretty interesting that quantum physics actually has evidence of a creator. Yes, there's the Copenhagen theory in quantum physics, which deals with the issue of observation, brings about actuality, and that observation actualizes probability. And because in some areas of quantum physics, they deal with things that aren't supposed to behave like they do. Superpositioning, the Schroder-Kat issue, quantum tunneling. There are these things, and so the Copenhagen interpretation, which has fallen out of favor of quantum physicists, is the idea that an observer is necessary for... That's the right way to put this.

I hope I'm saying it the right way. For those who know, please correct me. But an observer in the Copenhagen theory of quantum physics, if an observer is necessary in order to actualize potentiality, and that everything else is non-actual until observed, well, then who's the observer? This lends itself towards God. So if you have information on that, you want to send it to me on the quantum stuff, because I would like to study that as well.

I need to study. Yeah, there's another piece of evidence that he brought up that I think, in my opinion, is a planned dump to the atheist position. Well, you know, see, the problem with... Let me see.

We don't have any waiting, so let me verify that. So he was saying that evolution was proven? Is that what he said? Is that what he said? I'm trying to understand if that's what you said. Oh, no. I just said in the quantum physics video, there's a piece of evidence that I think is a planned dump against the atheist position, is what I meant to say.

Okay. Well, send it to me, you know, send it to me, and see if I can check it out. I've begun an outline on quantum physics, quantum mechanics, and I'm in the early stages of it, the very early stages, where I just do definitions, and then I've got to continue to read, and then I need to understand more.

And boy, there's so much to study. I've read a couple of books on it, and if you say you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics. So I see the issue, as I've read through some of the stuff a couple of years ago, probability has a lot to do with things. What are the odds of this? What are the odds of that?

And why do particles behave this way in this condition and different condition? And the issue of statistics and probability I think is very interesting, because back in my head it just says this is because of God, that statistics deal with universals like mathematics and probability. Well, this requires universal background.

You have to have the universals. Now, nominalists say there are no universals. Realists say there are in philosophy. But the nominalists position self-refuting. And I was just having a discussion with this with an atheist today about three hours ago.

It took a half hour, 40 minutes to take a break from Bible study and debate it a little bit. So there are a lot of interrelated issues within quantum physics that need to be studied. And I certainly have a great deal to learn about it.

I really do. So one of the jokes I'll say, you know, I'll say, he doesn't have all his paws in a litter box. Sometimes I'll say his quantum tunneling doesn't.

And that's a joke. Because quantum tunneling is a phenomenon where an atom or a subatomic particle can appear on both sides of a barrier when it's not supposed to be able to penetrate that barrier. It's called quantum tunneling. So I just say quantum tunneling doesn't, you know.

That's all. And also, there's this other Christian guy who made a video on quantum physics. And he showed that the fact that God is a Trinity, he said that in quantum physics that's called a quantum superposition. And I thought that was very interesting. Quantum superpositioning in the Trinity, that's interesting.

Yeah, I'd like to study that. The reason is because I also like studying the issue of the Trinity as it relates philosophically to the one and the many problem. Is the ultimate nature of the universe one thing or many things? And there's problems with both positions, but the equally ultimate aspect of one and many in the Trinity is necessarily the case in Trinitarianism, which then poses a third option of the one and the many.

The both are true, not either one. Philosophy can't presuppose Trinitarianism without presupposing the Trinitarian Christian God. And so they're left with a problem. So I like discussing that on that issue also. So if you can send me stuff, you know, and it'd be detailed like, you know, hey, don't say, hey, here's that link. I'll just delete it. I don't know who's talking about what. You say, here's that thing on quantum physics and superpositioning related to the Trinity. Oh, that thing.

I'll check it out. OK. We got to go, buddy. All right, man. Call back tomorrow if you want. OK. Hey, folks, we are out of time. May the Lord bless you. I hope you have a good evening. And by the way, I'll be teaching tonight live on Romans Chapter 9, 9 to 23. Very controversial topic. Go to the calendar on CARM for it. I'll talk to you later. Another program powered by the Truth Network.