Here we are, February 9, 2014, lecture discussion number 142 on the book of Romans, and I have a little editorializing right off the bat. A couple of things I want to bring up first. I want to bring up that I not only picked Seattle, but I beat the spread, and now I am 14-2. on the Super Bowl in the last 16 years, and I just need to get that into the public record, because I enjoy gloating about it. Now, the next thing I want to do is tell you that last week I introduced Pascal's Wager, and I intended to keep going in that direction this week. And I am going to kind of do that, but basically I have other things to do because of current events, and I'll explain that in a minute. But I have an introduction of another subject that really is very much related to Paschal's Wager, and you'll understand what I'm saying as I get through to it. Last Sunday we ventured into the aforementioned Paschal's Wager, leaving off at Matthew 19, 16-17, Luke 11, 11-14, Luke 12, 1-5, and John 8, 51, where we are beginning to discuss the biblical definitions of murder and murderer. We found ourselves at Pascal's Wager because so many evolutionary monists or atheists insist that God is evil. If you weren't here last week, I quoted a gentleman that said that God is a psychotic, a pathological mass murderer of the highest order. So I quoted Him, he's the most recent nonsense to emanate from those who have no biblical understanding at all. They are absolutely defining themselves as biblically illiterate. It is okay, I understand that. And biblically illiterate is not accurate. I shouldn't apply that to them. Biblically hostile, probably a better description. Anyway, they so hate the concept of a Creator God who will end sin and judge that sin. They so hate that concept that they will never, not for an instant, consider any evidence that is contrary to their view. They just won't do it. And so we have a tendency to whenever one of them, especially a celebrity, and let me just editorialize again here. Celebrities, we have a celebrity preoccupation in this country. It just drives me crazy. And they are now allowed to give their opinion on things when they are wholly unjustified and unable to do so. And yet we treat them as if they have value. They're usually the least educated among us. And yet they are somehow put on these pedestals. Stop it. My goodness, I can't. I can't. I just don't get it. Being in athletics as long as I have, I came in contact with with some tremendously well-known, especially coaches. And I never asked them for their autograph. I never did that. I knew how insulting that was to both of us. It's more insulting to me. It's also insulting to them. You drool on human beings. You are making a fool of both you and the human being that you're drooling on. Just quit it. They don't deserve it, and it is harmful to both of you. It is really harmful to them. It destroys them. This celebrity preoccupation in this country, I just don't get it. And this is an example of it. Some celebrity says something completely indefensible. But he's so sure he's right because people have blown smoke at him all his life. And it drives me nuts. Okay, enough of that. You can present truth, you can present evidence and reason, but none of it is allowed by the evolutionary philosophers today that conflicts with their belief system. They won't allow you to present it. And I realize that I've stated a generality here, but there are exceptions, of course. But generally, evolutionists will not engage with anyone who is not, as they are, monistically obedient. They will not interact, they will not have discussions, and non-evolutionists are shunned by the evolutionary community. That is just the way it is generally. Now usually it's been my experience that this response is both self-preservation and philosophical. Self-preservation in the sense of, let's take Hollywood again, since I'm pounding on them. If you identify yourself as, you are outside the accepted political and social arena that is Hollywood today, or the media today, your job is in jeopardy in your career. There's a self-preservation aspect to evolutionary philosophy that is in the scientific community. You cannot say anything that will identify you as the enemy. So there is self-preservation, and then there's this philosophical reason that they shun the non-evolutionary thinkers. What I mean by that is that the scientific community is largely funded by governments all over the world. Governments fund science, and control and conformity are governmental characteristics. So if I am being funded by something that wants to control and wants conformity, then I end up being conformed and controlled. Evolutionary philosophy lends itself nicely to statist regimes and systems. Whereas, a man who is self-aware of his accountability to his Creator, he, I, you, we're far more predisposed to resist being subservient to a secular relativism, which means just simply this. Christians seek to please the true, immutable God, Creator God. That's what we do. And we don't worship governments or celebrities. We shouldn't. Certainly we don't bow to the whims of a mutable, variable, bureaucratic entity. So to boil it all down, the sciences are pressured by funding, if not outright controlled by funding. The governments are representative of its elite class. The elites are the governing class. We almost have a monarchy in this state. We have of us just name names. We have Murkowski as senator, Murkowski as governor, Murkowski as senator. We have H.W. Bush as president, George W. Bush as president, Jeb Bush as governor, Jeb Bush as presidential candidate. We just have one or two families. We have them or the Clintons. That seems to be our only choices. That's odd behavior for a representative republic. What is happening to us? So the elite class controls the government. I have scientists pressured by funding. Governments are representative of its elite class. The elite class is ever more so temporal-minded nowadays, humanistic, if not hedonistic. What do I mean by hedonistic? Self-worship. You see, if you don't worship God, then you're going to worship the next highest thing you think is available. Who's that? That's yourself. That's hedonism. So it's either God or it's hedonism. That's Pascal's wager, right? Who will you choose? So anyway, the government is certainly not concerned with eternal matters, nor so is now the scientific community, because the scientists are then reflective of the collapse of morality. Look around us. I'm an old person, an old person who has been complaining about this forever, but it does not take anybody of any age to look at what is happening to our morality in this country. Just every statistic of what we have. The degradation that is here. Half of this country is not in the workforce. When Bill the Fast was young, the economic system of this country was agriculturally based. And if you're going to work on a farm, everybody's going to work. The three-year-old is working. That's how it was. So, it's completely changed. we have a collapse of morality. And atheism has not just a foothold in our university systems, but in fact it's in command. And that, by the way, is contrary to the overall population. The overall population is very much non-atheistic. It very much believes in God. And again, I'm generalizing. I recognize that. But generalities have merits. Generalities are generalities because Here's a profundity, they're generalities. In other words, they have mathematical merit. All of that has led us to a condition where Christians are now excluded from science, if possible. Certainly, Christian apologetics are prohibited by the secularists who control the schools and the media. By apologetics, I mean Christian defenses of biblical truth. That's called Christian apologetics. Our defenses that Christians make of biblical truth are excluded irrespective of the merits of those defenses. The merits don't matter. If I had a dollar for every time somebody told me the truth doesn't matter, I would own much more real estate than I could possibly maintain. Christian positions are now predetermined to be wrong. just because they are Christian positions, prejudged to be specious and to be unsound by being simply a biblical reference. If you refer to the Bible, then your position is automatically immediately wrong. Thus, no Bible position can be represented to the arbiters of science are included in any school system or curriculum regardless of the substantiation of that said position by scientific methods. So I can even prove my biblical position by scientific methods. It still won't matter. It won't be included because it's what? Yeah, it's Christian. It's gone. How long has that been true? Not very long. Yeah, 50, 60, 70 years tops. And by the way, the church began to collapse as a institution of intellectual pursuit probably in the 1920s. It began to disintegrate and it probably completely collapsed as an intellectual avenue where people would gather in order to challenge themselves. It collapsed completely probably in the 1970s. Very few churches now. are places to go where you learn diverse things, especially things of wisdom. We ceded control. The Christians did. Now why? Why would we do that? I have a position, as you know. The adjudicators now, though, of science, they have control of the gates. They're the gatekeepers. and no Christian discovery will pass, no Christian discovery will receive funding, immediate disqualification on the basis that science is now defined as atheistic or monistic. Same word, same meaning. So if it is not atheistic, if it is not monistic, which means physically only, if it has any spiritual element to it at all, science won't accept it by definition. And no dissent is tolerated. Ideological fascism is now the norm. It's prevalent. So only evolutionary dogma is defined as science, no matter how horribly flawed it may be found. And I'm describing a bleak condition. I know that. I wrote it. And as I'm writing it, I'm going, this is bad. But don't despair, because there are leaks in the dam. They have tried to build a wall, and people are tunneling, making ladders. People have hilties. That's for the foundation folks here in the congregation. If you know what a hiltie is, you have a terrible life. It's like knowing what a sheetrock knife is. Same thing. Somebody hands you a sheetrock knife, you go, wow, pancake flipper. Whatever you do, don't admit that you know what that thing can be used for. Same thing for a Hilti. But rebellion has begun to rise up. The arbiters are demonstrating panic as well because of that. It is becoming increasingly difficult to control the rebels now. The rebels are asking more and more difficult questions, and where are they doing it? They're doing it on the Internet. The Internet has exploded and has become a battlefield, and the mantras of evolution are being exposed as factually untrue. All mantras, for that matter. If you've got a mantra, your mantra is in trouble now. Access to information is impossible to contain, but I predict, as you know, But somebody's going to want to shut it all down because it's hard to control people that have free exchanges of ideas. We don't want that. We want one idea. Everybody believes the same thing. You all go to the same church. You all go to the same places. We all move in the same manner and think the same way. That's control. That's what we want. We do not want a free exchange of ideas. So gatekeeping is now problematic, information impossible to restrict, all the gatekeepers, whether they be governments or universities, media, even churches. Churches that have bad doctrine are getting blasted on the internet. And what do I say? Yay! You can't defend what you have? Then you don't deserve to have it. Get rid of it. So all the hoaxes of the governments, the universities, the media, the churches, I love these shows where you can find out how they tricked you, how they manipulated you into buying something. Eric and Lindsay and I and Lori were talking about it last night. All the ways they get you to choose something. Just Madison Avenue techniques. Somebody wants you to choose a card. I was talking about a magician that knows he's going to do a card trick. And he wants you to pick a card out of the air. And he wants you to pick a seven of diamonds, for example. What he will do as you're walking into the elevator to go up to the room, he pushes the number seven. In the background is a picture on the wall of the number seven. As you walk down the hall, what do you think the door number is? Number seven, as you go in, there's something that has some kind of a reference to seven on it. And then he shows you only numbered cards, no color cards at all. He just gives you, they just happen to show up. He shows you, and what number do you think you pick? Seven. And he goes, I think you picked seven of diamonds. And you go, wow, how did he do it? Well, he led you to it. It's simple mind manipulation going on in the CIA since World War I. And yet we fall for it, like Eric used an example of a guy that had a phrase and he made you think of something and then he told you it was a boat. Well, how come I knew it was a boat? How did you know? Well, I talked about sailing, I talked about water, I talked about... and you just did exactly... I made you think of a boat and then I told you you thought of a boat and you thought I was a genius. That's been going on in the churches for a hundred years. And those churches are filled. And what do they depend on? They absolutely depend upon the congregation to be dumb as a bag of hammers. And they're winning. E.T. Barnum. There's somebody I can steal money from, Barnum, every single minute, and he likely comes to church. So, I don't want to make you think that I'm not... That's what I love about the internet. All those hoaxes and scams, outright lies, every day they're being exposed. It's commonplace. Secrecy is no longer secret. I think that's cool. I bring all of this up because this is my introduction into today, because of this recent debate seen by millions of people. I feel it's my responsibility to watch it, because I'm confident that I'll get questions on it, and that has been the case already. This debate was between the founder of Answers in Genesis, Mr. Ken Ham. and a television personality, a gentleman named Bill Nye. It's a debate that, as I watched about an hour of it or so at the most, that I found that debate to be wanting, as I always do with these types of things. And that's not that Mr. Hamm and Mr. Nye were insincere or necessarily unqualified. They may be quite expert. I'd have to talk to them to find out. I don't know if they're However, if they have such expertise, it was not demonstrated. Mike gave me an example of Edgar Andrews debating Richard Dawkins, by the way. I don't know. I'm going to have to research to find out if it's true. It just rings true to me. Edgar Andrews debated Richard Dawkins constantly, quite a bit. Not constantly, but quite a bit. and just literally slaughtered Dawkins every single time. Now, it's possible, apparently, to find on YouTube Dawkins' side of that debate, but for some reason, Professor Andrews is missing. If that's true, I'm going to find Mr. Andrews' side, and it's going on the Internet. I don't care what I have to do. Now, he may restrict it, but I bought a lot of his books, and I'm calling him. He needs to be on the internet. There's a man with genuine understanding of very complex things. He's the world's foremost authority on super molecules. Mr. Dawkins is no match for the intellect of Professor Andrews. But we didn't get Professor Andrews and Richard Dawkins. We got these other two gentlemen. And in their defense, the format disallowed for complexity to be made manifest. And so what they did instead was substitute simplicity, which I find, as you know, to be mostly useless. I have Chronister's Law. If you're being asked to debate somebody, odds are that you are not qualified because everyone wants to pick the loser to debate. So be very, very, very careful. Proverbs 122, I say it all the time. How long, you simple ones, God speaking to us, how long, you simple ones, will you love the simple? And implied in God's question is that humanity will love the simple a very, very long, long time. And immediately you have to define simple when God says what simple is, what is simple. It's pretty clear that God defines simple as the physical reality. If the physical reality is the simple to God, then what is the complex? And as an aside, evolution is fundamentally focused on the physical reality. In fact, they're called physicalists, or materialists, or reductionists. Particle physics demonstrates that the entire universe is a construct that requires an observer. And if the observer is not there, the physical construct disappears, it collapses. That's particle physics. How long will you love the simple goddess? That may account for the fact that everyone does, almost universally. That may account for the imposed shallowness of the aforementioned debate. The debaters were cognizant of their audience and the ability to monetize the event, the subsequent monetizing of the event. If you make something very, very complex, how many sales are you going to have? Not very many. You make something simple and people will buy it, because people love the simple, and they love to think the simple is complicated. So, you get two for one. Buy one, get one free. That shouldn't even be allowed to be said. It's such a scam. When I get to be king of the United States sometime next week, I am outlawing buy one, get one free. as if it's an insult to everyone that sees it. As you know, I take a different approach, obviously. I believe in beating my audience, this audience, the internet audience to death with the most difficult material I can possibly find and explain. That's what I do. And from the continuity of germplasm, the continuity of the soul, to the considerations of entropy, which is probably my personal favorite. Neither of which is a crowd-pleasing endeavor as illustrated here every Sunday, but that's what I'm going to do if I get a chance. I'm going to take the most complicated interconnections of the Bible and I'm going to put them out there and try my best to get you to at least know they're there. That's all I'm really after. Complete control of it isn't my goal for you. That's your goal for you. My goal is for you to know it's there. I say this all the time. If a father cannot defend the Bible, the children are destroyed. So, you've got to figure out who's going to talk to your kids and what are they going to say to them. And you better be ready. So, here we go, in a way. As you know, entropy, let me put that on the board. It's a word that you must begin to think about. Entropy. I say that all the time. You've got to think about this. You have to know this. Everybody goes, wow, you say I have to know all this stuff. See if this one will work better. It will. Entropy. Well, I say it because, just as I just mentioned, I deal with kids that have very low faith. And they have very low faith because they went into the world and they got massacred. And so I go, OK, what would help them not have this problem? There's a guy with a welder pulling up and headed towards my car. Please, it's insured. Anyway, I'm sorry. I say these things because I know what they run into. And entropy is one of the things that is constantly beaten into them in the sense that it is used as a hammer against their faith and so it becomes very, very important. It addresses the verdict and sentencing that is Genesis 3. Entropy shows up in the Bible in Genesis 3 when God is sentencing Adam and Eve and Satan. We have a trial, we have a verdict, we have a sentencing phase, right? And so, that's where it comes up, and the continuity of germplasm, my other favorite, is Romans 5, 12 through 14. That's the virgin birth, which is the solution to the origin of death, that is, entropy, the sense that entropy is now accelerated or expanded after the fall of Adam, who was not deceived. Anyway, let me keep going. I therefore find the study of entropy to be fundamental. And same for cell structures. I find cell structures, somatic cells, germ cells, especially important because at some point your kids are going to run into, is there life after death? And the monist will say no. Is there a solution to death? And the monist will say no. And that, of course, is not true in entropy. The study of entropy or second law of thermodynamics and somatic cells and germ cells, biological structures, the cell structure, wipes out their position. So just having that fundamental understanding makes you so powerful as a father or a mother, and that is very valuable to your children. So all of that said, all of that, I just brought all that introduction to address this debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. something admittedly that bothered me. I find it predictably discouraging, and this was not an exception. So I thought I would attempt to intrude myself into the debate and see how long, until they catch on, that I'm out there. So we have Bill Nye versus Keith Ham with Steve Chronister, S.A. Chronister, Kibitzing here on the side. And I just want to see if I can add a small amount of value. That remains to be seen. I got that. OK. So Mr. Nye started this debate, and he had a bunch of stuff he wanted to get in. Limestone. Fantastic, I said, when he began to hold up a piece of limestone. That's very, very important for us to know. Man, we're going to do some cool stuff. You need to know that the formation of limestone is extremely important with regard to what it is. No attic flood, that's correct. Limestone formation and what's inside the limestone. And that takes us to the Grand Canyon, the formation of the Grand Canyon. Very important. I've done a little bit of study, not a great deal of study, outside the Grand Canyon with regard to Mount St. Helens because of the relationship between the two, and I might bring that up. But Mr. Nye knew that these are big issues, but he didn't know how big. He thought they were all on his side, when literally none of them were on his side. That is how opposite he is. I could imagine the evolutionist going, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, If you ran into a real scientific mind, you are literally handing him things to destroy you with. Mr. Nye doesn't know that. And I am sure as on our side, we're going, where is Edgar Andrews? They are going, wow, we do not want this man presenting himself. So let's hope we can weather this. Radiometric dating. And I'll put them all on. I'll put them all on here because they'll stay here for a few weeks, probably, as I go through all of this. Cosmic microwave background radiation. Now, while I'm putting this down, I forgot microwaved in here. While I'm putting these down, I want you to start saying to yourself, OK, how much reading have I got into any of those four right off the bat? Observe temperature uniformity. So I have temperature uniformity. Mr. Nye brought up all of these, and I was just thrilled to hear his introduction, thinking What could I do with this, the finite speed of light? Because the scientific community assures us that light is finite. In other words, it has a constant speed. And then, of course, they say, well, maybe it doesn't, when it suits them. Predictability. Mr. Nye is constantly saying in his debate that creationism Our creation thinking, biblical thinking, has no predictability. I have to make sure. Where science is all, it makes predictions constantly, and that's how we function. Sequential fossils are polystrate fossils, or if you will, the strata, geological strata. And that's the first page of his list. He had other things there as well that he brought up. He brought up Noah's intelligence. By the way, whenever somebody brings up, even in the church, when they bring up the intelligence of Noah or Moses or Adam, what is the case? They're always, always stupid. which is the absolute opposite of the truth. The Bible is constantly presenting them as men of tremendous intellectual capability, far exceeding ours. And we are constantly doing the opposite. Of course, Mr. Nye was convinced that Noah was stupid, Adam is stupid, and then God is stupid. God being stupid, of course, is what they say of Christ, right? God and Christ are the same person. Then there's post-flood catastrophism. I don't have time to write that on the board. Ice coring, where they will drill into ice in Antarctica. They will make determinations based on the stratas that are in the ice core samples. And observation of light from distant galaxies. That falls into the finite speed of light, Einstein's theory of relativity. So there's also kangaroos and fish reproduction and the stupidity of Christians endangering the nation. If Christians are allowed a voice, then we will all be the worst for it. Obviously, I can't get to all of that in one Sunday, so waiting is going to be required. I'll keep doing this until I'm pretty confident that everyone has some kind of basic handle of it. Bear with me on this. Now, evolutionary philosophy, as with anthropogenic global warming, has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Do you know what I mean by anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change? You know what that means? That means that it is man-caused. Even though we had the medieval periods where there weren't any SUVs and it was quite warm, all the warming today is caused by emissions that are mostly human-based. And regardless of the amount of nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor, none of that matters. All that matters is the human-based element. And it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis, meaning that all the evidence that is contradictory is assimilated, like the board, and becomes evidence for the support of the premise An example of that is if we have extreme heat, what causes that? A particle put in the atmosphere by man. If we have extreme cold, what causes that? Particles put in the atmosphere that are man-made or man-caused. If we have moderate cold, what is that? What causes moderate cold? Particles put in the atmosphere that are caused. But how about moderate warm? If we have a lot of particles put in the atmosphere, whether they be hydrocarbons from hairspray or whether they be carbon monoxide, or whether they be carbon dioxide, or our breathing, your breathing, all of that is man-caused anthropogenic climate change or global warming, whichever the case may be. We have increased ice, we have decreased ice, we have more hurricanes, more tornadoes, or less hurricanes, less tornadoes. All of it is evidence in support of the premise, and the premise becomes non-falsifiable. Nothing you can do. That in philosophy, in debate, is called a non-falsifiable premise or hypothesis. Evolutionary philosophy has assumed many of the same characteristics. In fact, they thought of them first. So has the churches. I've gone to lots of churches where they have told me that this person is ill. I go, OK, I know that person. We'll go to the hospital. We'll do an x-ray, we'll bring the x-ray back, I'll bring an x-ray technician, and the doctor will come and we'll explain to you whether or not you're correct. If I did that and I showed a broken bone that still remains, they would say what? They should have seen it before the x-ray. It becomes a non-falsifiable premise. I've dealt with it my whole life. No matter what evidence I could present, it didn't matter. Evolution has that characteristic. Nothing will be accepted that refutes it by many of its proponents. That should alert us, by the way, to what I call the why of evolution. Why evolution is so precious to them. What does it do that we have made it into a non-falsifiable premise? It provides something. What does it provide? Well, I'm telling you one thing. It provides a lifestyle, both monetarily and philosophically. By the way, as you know, as I just alluded to, the monists say the same thing about the church, specifically the theistic evolutionists. The church people, no matter what you give them, they will assimilate it and call it something that God did. It's called the God of the gaps. We have evolution of the gaps. We have gaps on both sides. and people will utilize them to their advantage. Theistic evolutionists and the progressive evolutionists do the same thing as the anthropogenic global warming proponents. Christians have adapted evolution to fit into their biblical views that they pounded into Scripture, and that is a futile enterprise. It requires demands, intellectual gymnastics that no one is able to perform. But they try. It becomes so convoluted, it is So, we're confronted with a collision between diametrically opposed positions. One is a mechanism by which complex life could develop without intelligent agency, what I call the unmade. The other, now here comes Paschal's wager for those of you who were here last week, the other one, is made. There is nothing in the unmade column that can fit in the made column. Let me repeat this phrase. I worked hard at writing it. Evolution is a mechanism by which complex life could develop, they will say did develop, without intelligent agency. The other, the made, says no. Life requires mindfulness. There must be a mind, a mind utilizing an intelligent system of physical laws. You're either going to choose unmade or you're going to choose made. But you're going to choose Paschal's wager. And you must choose. And you have chosen. Everyone does. And those are absolute opposites. They're non-reconcilable. And that should be obvious. But it apparently isn't. More on that later. Now, to rephrase, evolutionary philosophy has as its foundation, it has something that it needs. It has to have it. If this isn't there, it is doomed. It has to have time. It must have vast amounts, huge amounts, unimaginable amounts of time, there can be nothing but great lengths of time. If there is short duration of time, when I say short, if it's a million years or less, then evolution cannot fit into that time frame. It must have billions and billions of years. It also must have this other element. It must have natural selection. Both of those are key. time, natural selection, you begin to pound away at either one of those premises, either one of those concepts, and evolution collapses. And it will be very difficult for them to assimilate that. And they know it, so they defend it like no one could possibly imagine. Okay, Christian philosophy counters the time and the natural selection with infinite intelligence, or if you will, omniscience and goodness. Last week I said to you that you cannot separate goodness from omniscience. You cannot. So, this is a battle between time and natural selection, and omniscience and goodness. And time is a created entity by the infinite intelligence. It's a thing. So, to repeat, vast amounts of time is critical to evolution, as is natural selection or beneficial mutation, whichever you prefer, which is why germplasm and Mendelian genetics become so important. Because I'm going to attack beneficial mutation with Mendelian genetics. I'm going to attack natural selection with germplasm, somatic cells and germ cells. Remember all of that? Notice that evolution is also the opposite of goodness. Over here I have infinite intelligence or omniscience, and I have goodness. Over here I have time and natural selection, and they are opposites. Evolution is the opposite of goodness. There is no altruism. There is no goodness in the evolutionary process. If evolution—and that's not a coincidence, by the way—if evolution is true, then physical death brings what? Nothingness. Consciousness, your consciousness, your personhood is extinguished forever. It brings nothing. Now, why would it? Why would somebody who believes in a God, add evolution to their belief system. I cannot get it. I won't ever get it. To Mr. Ham's credit, he brought that out and took a beating for it on the Internet. God bless him for that. He hit a chord there. And they hate him for that. So, physical death, if evolution is true, physical death brings nothingness, consciousness is extinguished, our lives are therefore what? Temporal, meaningless, purposeless. There is no justice then. Why isn't there justice when I say there's no justice? What do I mean? Justice is good, fair. How much justice do you see in the world around you today? If there is no accountability for everyone who has done everything or anything in this world today, There is no accountability. If all you do is go to an extinguished state, then there is never any accounting. There is never any trial. O.J. gets away with it. Does that make sense? There was a wonderful thing that I saw the other day. The shortest books ever written, one of them was How O.J. Found the Other Killers. It just made me laugh. A bunch of short books. Bill Clinton's advice on marriage, for example. I'm going to get in trouble, aren't I? It's okay. There is no justice if this life is temporal and is extinguished, and therefore no goodness, because goodness and justice, fairness, are inseparable as well. Somehow Mr. Nye believes teaching evolution, the fact that there is a meaninglessness, extinguishing of consciousness and personhood, no justice, no goodness, and teaching this to our children will make them scientific marvels, as opposed to bringing immoral chaos. I'm going to say to you that when you teach something that says there is no goodness, there is no justice, there is no fairness, there is no meaning, there is no hope, you bring that into your community and you pound it in, you end up with immoral chaos. Look around. And teaching creationism, Mr. Nye believes, will eliminate flush toilets and cell phones. That's pretty much how he presented it. Watch him, he did it over and over again. You that believe in an intellectual agency with regard to creation, you are a threat to Apple computers. We cannot have you and Apple computers or any technological... That's what he believes. And that was an emotional appeal. He's trying to convert all of Kentucky. It was extraordinary to listen to him. He has absolutely no idea at all what he is discussing. That's very, very frustrating to watch and sad. almost pathetic. He continually made emotional appeals as well as constantly using the argument of the majority. See what I mean by that? It's a classic debate technique. It's flawed. You're not allowed to use it in a traditional debate that's actually moderated directly. He says, well, all of these people believe it, therefore it must be true. We have all of these people, trust me, and we all believe it, so it must be true. That's called the argument of the majority. And apparently he's unaware of that as well. And since we are now at things that Mr. Nye is apparently unaware of, we're going to discuss one. We're going to discuss this right here. Cosmic microwave background radiation and temperature uniformity. And the horizon problem. Put that on the board. The horizon problem. Or the horizon paradox, if you will, it's like the faint sun paradox. And the finite speed of light or the constant speed of light. Mr. Nye thought that these were things that would support his position and they do the opposite. So let me cover them very quickly. And this is where it gets really, really. What's the word I want? It has drool in it. This is where the elders come forward and hand out buckets to collect drool. In 1965, a radio telescope detected a radiation signal that came from everywhere at uniform intensity. So that meant a radio telescope discovered that there was a signal, if you will, static. hum, whatever you want to think of in your mind to help you. That's not accurate, but it will help you get a picture. Think of the monitors going off all the time during the service. So you hear this constant hum. But you're not hearing this. You're not even feeling it. But they detected a radiation signal that came from everywhere at uniform intensity. And it's in the background in the cosmos, if you will. And that is why it is called cosmic microwave background radiation. and it is striking the earth. It is striking everything. And it is a black-body radiation, which means it has a thermal equilibrium or uniformity. Don't worry about that today. Will I make you understand black-body radiation? Yes, I will. So be prepared for that. Cosmic microwave radiation has a spectrum, if you will, how will I I don't think that I can, but it has a spectrum that matches that of a black body. That's a light spectrum. Now, just try to stay with me here. Cosmic microwave radiation is considered proof of the Big Bang. The fact that it is there is, they believe, proves the Big Bang position or theory. And so they actually, this is where we get into predictability, they said that if the Big Bang were true, that we should have this radiation, this cosmic material, microwave radiation that's in the background that would be from all directions if the Big Bang were correct. And in 1978, the Nobel Prize was awarded to the astronomers who verified its existence in 1965. And everyone celebrated that the Big Bang was now proved because of cosmic microwave background radiation. And Mr. Nye said, wow, we have cosmic microwave background radiation, we've made predictions, and we have proven the Big Bang. And he was like, that was a fact. And obviously, he did not know about the horizon problem. Now, that's really difficult for me to understand. It is difficult for me to understand why somebody who had no understanding of these two related things, temperature uniformity or equilibrium, cosmic microwave background radiation and the horizon problem with regard to the finite speed or constant speed of light. How could you ever go on a debate if you didn't know that is my first response. It would be like asking me to fly a plane and I walk into the plane and I go, Where's the controls? I mean, I have such a low level, what would make me think I could fly a 747, or any kind of aircraft for that matter? What kind of person thinks that they can do this? What would be the motive, and I'm back to the celebrity and the monetizing of this event, aren't I? Something motivates you to do something that you're wholly unqualified to do. You present your opinion when you should never, ever say anything. Fascinates me, human behavior. So, cosmic microwave background radiation indicates that the universe, the entire universe, because this is everywhere, as they predicted it would be. And it is, it's everywhere. It has a temperature of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin. It's something that we'll discuss in the coming weeks. It's something that you will really find fascinating, I hope, if I do it right. But it indicates that the universe is at uniform temperature. I have temperature uniformity because of cosmic microwave background radiation. So just think now that if you took a thermometer, if you had the capacity, and put it anywhere in the universe, the temperature would be uniform. Same temperature. So, we have a question. How was this uniform temperature achieved? What's caused it all to be uniform? If all the regions of the universe are at thermal equilibrium, that means what? That means heat was transferred. If this side of the auditorium is freezing cold, and that side of the auditorium is very hot, eventually the heat would transfer. And I would have temperature equilibrium as long as I didn't produce or cause any outside issues. So I have transference of heat, electromagnetic transference. So what carries the heat from the universe throughout all of the universe? What carries it? What would you guess? electromagnetic radiation. Now what happens to be the carrier of electromagnetic radiation? Light. Light can take and transfer heat from one part of the universe to another part of the universe. What's the problem? Yes, light has a speed. A finite speed, according to the scientific community. See, light being the carrier of the vehicle of the heat transference seems to be a solution, but then we have a rug roll. Because light has a finite speed, 300,000 kilometers per second, or 186,000 miles per second, if you prefer. The universe is how big? It's big. I will make a big diagram. There it is. This part is hot. This part is not hot. I have to get that spot to be uniform. Temperature uniformity. Equilibrium. How do I do it? I transfer heat. What am I using as my character? The fastest possible carrier I can find. Speedy Gonzales of characters. And he takes the heat and he's running and he is going all over the universe and he creates temperature equilibrium. What's the problem? Speedy not what? He's not fast enough. The universe has regions that are too distant for light to have traveled to them within the time that is allowed by the Big Bang. So how has uniform temperature been achieved? It's there. How do we achieve it? How was it achieved? Somehow thermal equilibrium occurred faster than the speed of light could make it occur. That's called the horizon problem. Mr. Nye thought this helped him, when in fact it has a serious issue. Somehow, thermal equilibrium occurred, again, faster than the speed of light. And it means that the finite speed of light is an issue that has a horizon that can't be crossed. So, what do we do if we are an evolutionary monist? We have to co-opt this. We have to assimilate it. Because we can't let our theory die. It's so critical. And so, theories are proposed that the expansion rate of the Big Bang was much faster than the speed of light. So, as the universe expanded, the space of the universe, not the matter, but the expansion of space, the space expanded faster than light. So, the expansion of space is faster than the speed of light. That was something that was proposed by Alan Guth or Guth in 1980. It's called the inflation theory. Now we're going to have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to find out if he's right. Inflation must be consistent with relativity, the expansion of space versus the expansion of matter. That's what we're into. But the big problem, the other proposed theory, is that light speed is not constant. In other words, they say we either have the expansion of space faster than the speed of light, or it's possible they will say that speed of light has not been finite and not been constant. In fact, there was a time when it was faster, they will tell you. And if, you see, light were much faster at its origin, then we could breach the horizon. Does that make sense? But there, now we've got another problem. What have we got another problem with? Now we have, I don't have it on the board here, but I have light from distant galaxies. Because they say that we are not seeing distant galaxy light in real time. We are seeing it, it's watching the past. And we can't do that because we need this time. If the speed of light can go faster than we currently say, or what the evolutionist currently says, then time is attacked. And we cannot let one of our pillars fall. If light is faster, then vast amounts of time is not there, and if vast amounts of time is not there, then there is no time for what? Natural selection to do its magic. And we would be seeing other galaxies in almost real time. That is not allowed. I've got to keep my time if I'm an evolutionist. Lightspeed must always be constant or evolutionary philosophy teeters. And Alan Guth's original expansion theory or inflation theory was proven false in 1996. There's no physical mechanism for starting inflation or ending inflation. So now what? Because if all we left is with the constant speed of light, and that's untouchable, it's blasphemy to question it in evolutionary circles, and Mr. Nye needed to know that before he even brought it up. So you can just imagine the people watching this on the evolutionary, monistic side of things, how they were discouraged. But finally, and I know everyone loves the word finally. Here's somebody you've got to know, too. His name is Granville Sewell. Mr. Sewell is causing problems, still causing problems. Granville Sewell is a professor of mathematics at the University of Texas, El Paso. And Dr. Sewell, as a mathematician, is well aware that mathematics is no friend of evolutionary monism. Dr. Sewell notes that entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, cannot be explained by evolutionary natural selection. Okay. telling me to get off the stage, but no, I've got to fight. How much time do I have? None. Great. I have taken on time. If I'm able to destroy natural selection, then there is big problems. Just know this very, very fast. I'm down to how much? One minute. Dr. Sewell notes that entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, cannot Natural selection cannot stand up against it. High entropy means high amounts of randomness or chaos. Low entropy means complexity or high order. So you understand that? Low means that something is very complex. High means that it is in complete random. The earth, our earth, has spectacular low entropy. We have tremendous complexity. And can natural selection accomplish this low entropy using primarily the sun as the mechanism for it? And you should be aware that the sun did it, is an evolutionary linchpin. They have to have energy to get low entropy. And they say the sun, along with life, life and sun will produce low entropy. But that's a problem for them, because how do I get life? We're trying to figure out what life is. How can I use life to get to low entropy? And Dr. Sewell says that explanation is not adequate. He raises the compensation argument, and we'll get to that next week, and the extraordinary mathematical difficulties that arise. So next week off we'll go into the decrease of entropy. Closed and open systems, probability and statistical mathematics, preservation versus creation of low entropy, all things that Mr. Nye should have known, and all things that Mr. Ham should have stood up and hit him with a bat with. It didn't happen. So, next week, what should you do? Let me repeat what we'll be doing next week. Paschal's Wager. You should recognize that all I'm doing is Paschal's Wager. God is, God is not. What will you choose? So again, next week, the decrease of entropy, the mathematical consequences of it, closed and open systems, probability, statistical mathematics, preservation versus creation. In other words, what preserves complexity and what creates complexity? There's a difference. That's what we'll discuss. What should you do? Invite your friends? Good luck with that. Okay. Again, all we're doing simply is debating God is, God is not. Let's rise and be dismayed.