“The Fool and the Heretic” Theistic Evolution or Young Earth with Blake Togerson

[00:00:00] thanks for being here today my name is Kevin Conover and I’m your host on educate for Life radio we’re

[00:00:05] broadcasting um still on the radio down here in Southern California K pra 1210 a.m. we’re also on FM 106.1 in North

[00:00:12] County and then of course we’re podcast on Spotify and all the other uh podcast platform podcast platform so my guest

[00:00:20] today is Blake and uh Blake togerson he’s a former student of mine and also a

[00:00:25] very successful uh young businessman already um Blake thanks for joining in

[00:00:31] here thanks for having me I’m super excited it’s gonna be fun yeah it’s really cool and um we’re going to be T

[00:00:38] if you didn’t know we’re going to be talking about theistic Evolution and also um six day creation and uh Blake

[00:00:46] you go to point Lan nazarine is that correct yes sir I’m a business management student over here yeah yeah

[00:00:52] and um uh so you read um the book The Fool and the heretic I believe that’s your professor is that your professor at

[00:00:58] Point Loman nazarine who is Daryl Faulk is that correct no so he is close

[00:01:04] friends with Daryl Faulk my professor is Dr Michael loal genius guy love him uh

[00:01:10] and again like a collaborator with Faulk um but I’ve read two of faulk’s works

[00:01:15] now and fool and the heretic is co-authored by Daryl Faulk uh who is of the side of theistic evolution and Todd

[00:01:22] Charles wood who is the young Earth creationist and they have this dialogue

[00:01:28] um within this book and I thought was super interesting yeah and so I’ve read uh the

[00:01:33] majority of the book um since you referenced it I was very curious um to hear what the people have to say and um

[00:01:39] it is an interesting book it’s definitely a different approach um more of a discussion sharing their background

[00:01:45] and there uh it’s it’s more personal it’s less of a debate and more of a why

[00:01:51] are you where you’re at kind of book um with both people sharing their viewpoints which is really interesting

[00:01:58] um and so I I think it’s an interesting book to read um but uh for those of you

[00:02:04] listening I was Blake’s 12th grade Bible apologetics teacher and I’m not sure how

[00:02:09] much we got into the age of the Earth discussion or not that when what year did you graduate so I graduated in

[00:02:16] 2022 and we didn’t talk a whole lot about the origin of mankind itself um so

[00:02:23] I I’m not actually super familiar with what uh you believe or what your stance is on that yeah interested to to have

[00:02:31] that discussion yeah yeah yeah and so that’s what we’re going to do here is we’re going to discuss this and you you know um you’re kind of you’re not

[00:02:38] completely decided is that correct but you’re kind of leaning towards theistic evolution is that your position I’m kind

[00:02:44] of against the idea of being completely decided in general uh I like the I think

[00:02:50] in in terms of Leaning I have my leanings toward a more uh theistic

[00:02:55] evolutionary side um and I I have some evidence on my little evidence sheet

[00:03:00] right here uh speech and debate speech and debate yeah speech and debate right there um and I think Genesis 1 and two

[00:03:09] and I I’ll kind of give a direct quote from uh Dr loal I think Genesis 1 and

[00:03:14] two in the context I understand it uh shouldn’t be read in a literalist context um and for good reason I think

[00:03:21] it’s because they’re two very different creation stories so the conflict that I

[00:03:27] had when reading Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2 is there’s deviations within the story

[00:03:33] itself so I’m saying okay well I believe in the inherent word of God that um it

[00:03:38] is divinely inspired that it is you know his word and and there’s no mistakes

[00:03:44] like Genesis 1 and two they’re not you know retconning one or the other um but

[00:03:49] which is the scientific description um and when we come into that debate with

[00:03:56] with the uh context of which one is scientific Al correct we run into a lot

[00:04:01] of issues um so I started understanding becoming more scientifically illiterate

[00:04:06] and uh picking which one is literal in the sense of how we came to be I I ran

[00:04:13] into some insoluble difficulties uh so the idea is Genesis 1

[00:04:18] based on the context in which it was written and I believe it’s widely agreed

[00:04:24] upon that Moses wrote Genesis correct that’s correct yeah uhhuh uh so the

[00:04:29] context in which that was written at the time in which it was written Genesis 1 seems to function as more of a hymn um

[00:04:36] to the Creator and Genesis 2 seems to function as more of a parable uh and in the context in which these were written

[00:04:43] and at the time that seems to line up pretty well and evidence of that is within the text itself and again the

[00:04:49] context in which they were written so I I kind of took this idea of okay well

[00:04:55] which one is right and I believe they’re both correct but don’t function a literalist description of how we came to

[00:05:02] be um and then getting into the science of of how did we come to be which which

[00:05:08] we’ll top on you know talk on after I give you a second to respond to that um

[00:05:13] sure sure so I am a yeah I am a sixday creationist I believe that Genesis 1 is

[00:05:19] more of a broad overview than Genesis 2 is getting down into more details but um

[00:05:25] I mean a big part of the reason that I that I believe what I do uh you know

[00:05:30] there’s both the scientific side and then there’s also of course the theological side which is you know

[00:05:36] hermeneutics how do you read Genesis 1 and you know the genre you said Genesis one looks like a hymn and of course um

[00:05:43] the genre of what you’re reading is going to affect um whether it’s metaphorical whether it’s an allegory

[00:05:50] what is it you know in the New Testament Jesus uses Parables frequently in order to describe the Kingdom of Heaven is

[00:05:56] like and so the question becomes uh what are the what are the uh words and other

[00:06:03] details of Genesis 1 uh to and actually Genesis 1-1 is uh frequently so for

[00:06:11] example Daryl Faulk in um the book The Fool and the heretic he says Genesis 1 through 11 is all uh more of a story

[00:06:19] that’s meant to illustrate a point but not actually to be taken literally it’s interesting because he says he’s not

[00:06:26] opposed to a literal Adam and Eve um although he believes that we evolve that

[00:06:33] God used Evolution to cause us to evolve and I I always try to tell people you know the the qu because people often say

[00:06:39] couldn’t God have used Evolution to to create everything but the real question isn’t really whether God could have the

[00:06:45] question is did he and I think it’s important to point out that um we’re not

[00:06:52] this this is not a matter of Salvation so a lot of people will say well it’s not a Salvation issue therefore it

[00:06:58] doesn’t matter but there’s a lot of things in Scripture that aren’t salvation issues but they still matter so for example the Virgin birth if

[00:07:04] somebody doesn’t believe in the Virgin birth it’s not as if that was a qualification for being able to go to heaven um and so there are still things

[00:07:13] that are very very important they actually affect the way people think about the scriptures um and so the discussion

[00:07:20] we’re having I think is a is a significant one the Presbyterian Church USA it’s the largest Presbyterian

[00:07:25] denomination I think it’s shrunk quite a bit but they adopted Evolution as their perspective and this also it looks like

[00:07:34] led to more leniency when it comes to things like um adopting same-sex P

[00:07:40] pastors who have same-sex attractions as well as saying that abortion is okay and

[00:07:46] so for a lot of people they say well look if you take this aspect of scripture and you you allegorize it well

[00:07:52] you have the potential of allegorizing other things uh for the same reason um so a lot of what I’m looking at is don’t

[00:07:59] think that the genre in Genesis 1 and 2 and 1- 11 is actually any kind of

[00:08:06] allegory or metaphor it looks to me like it’s being treated as history because

[00:08:11] Jesus treats it as history he says in the beginning he made them male and female um and then you have situations

[00:08:17] where um there are other references to the beginning of creation that seem to be referencing it as a literal

[00:08:24] historical record um but I but but um

[00:08:30] go on and and and uh you know make your point that you’re making here sure so a couple things to unpack with what you

[00:08:35] said the first thing is I kind of get this idea of okay so if we as the Presbyterian Church for example uh allow

[00:08:41] for you know Evolution to be taught and understood it creates a slippery slope effect um so that okay well if this is

[00:08:48] allegorized then perhaps this is and if this is okay then perhaps this is so if

[00:08:53] we don’t take everything the Bible says at face value in a literal sense as we understand it in in 2024 then you know

[00:09:02] it it can create a slope into other sin I I’d like to push back on that a little

[00:09:07] bit um because well that’s not that’s not really what I’m saying though so me

[00:09:12] understand that just to just to clarify so I wouldn’t say hey let’s believe that Genesis is literal so we can stop other

[00:09:20] people from you know sinning or something what I’m what I’m saying is

[00:09:25] that your method of interpretation needs to be consistent because if your method of interpretation is arbitrary then what

[00:09:32] happens is you can allegorize any portion of scripture that you potentially want to so I’m not saying I

[00:09:38] I think we need to believe in Genesis 1 as literal because it will prevent people from sinning I’m saying that if

[00:09:46] you don’t um have a consistent method of interpretation the Bible essentially

[00:09:52] becomes putty in your hands you can make it say whatever you want um so you have to have a hermeneutic that that is

[00:10:00] consistent meaning if the Bible expects you to take something literally you take it literally if the Bible expects you to

[00:10:06] take something figuratively you take it fig figuratively of course in Proverbs it says that wisdom is a woman and it’s

[00:10:14] a this is where Solomon is talking to his son and he’s contrasting wisdom um as a woman because

[00:10:22] young men are attracted to women right versus things like prostitution and sexual immorality so he’s contrast these

[00:10:29] two females of course it doesn’t mean that wisdom is literally a woman but that’s

[00:10:35] that’s very clear in the text the way he’s talking what versus Genesis 1-1 I

[00:10:40] would say is uh is definitely not speaking um in the genre of poetry uh

[00:10:50] that’s kind of where I’m going so so I think that’s where the the disagreeance comes in because when I read that I see

[00:10:56] okay we’re talking about God slay to Leviathan um he spoke over formless void to create

[00:11:04] the Earth right um there’s that is far more not literalist language so when

[00:11:10] when I’m reading Genesis and I’m saying okay you know the Lord overcame this mention of the Leviathan

[00:11:17] that’s in job that’s in the Book of Job okay got it um yeah and and there what

[00:11:22] it says is he can approach his he can approach the Leviathan and not be afraid it’s uh but anyway yeah go ahead

[00:11:30] but I I think even in Genesis in terms of like speaking over formless and void

[00:11:35] that that language uh myself and I think Dr lall uh and and darl Faulk read that

[00:11:42] as you know not literalist so in terms of like reading the Bible and there’s

[00:11:48] different genres in the Bible um if if what you’re saying is we have to read everything in like a conform hermeneutic

[00:11:57] as in one type of uh what would be the word genre um so

[00:12:02] it’s either everything’s literalist or everything’s not um I think Genesis is one of those books that is more

[00:12:10] allegorical and just based on the cultural context of the text and the evidence within it now are you talking

[00:12:17] about Genesis 1- 11 or are you talking about the whole book of Genesis because that also has the whole thing with

[00:12:22] Joseph and Egypt and for the context of this we’ll say Genesis 1 and 2 Genesis 1

[00:12:27] serves the purpose of being a to God and that’s kind of the way that I’ve read that and the way that um many of these

[00:12:35] go ahead can I ask you a question about that of course so how would you how would you deal with things like

[00:12:43] um where Jesus references um this where he says in the

[00:12:50] beginning he made them male and female um and that reference do you

[00:12:57] think that Jesus is is because he’s referencing clearly Adam and Eve do you

[00:13:04] H H what do you do with that in that kind of a situation how do you how do you handle that well I think there’s an

[00:13:09] interesting so you I remember you mentioned missing links one time and

[00:13:14] there’s no direct evidence that that you and I came from primates that I I haven’t seen any

[00:13:20] direct evidence for that that you and I have evolved from monkeys I agree with you yes so and and so I’m not going to

[00:13:27] claim that you and I came from monkey and I think it actually makes sense and faul kind of references this too if he’s

[00:13:34] not opposed to the idea of an Adam and Eve um but then I’ll see like vestigal

[00:13:39] structures and genes that we don’t use anymore and I’m going to reference specifically whales have now okay now I

[00:13:47] gotta wait I’m sorry to interrupt you I just want to make sure I’m tracking with you here yeah because Jesus says in the

[00:13:52] beginning he made them male and female but but if what you’re if what darl Faulk is saying is

[00:13:59] that’s actually not the beginning the beginning started so he’s he’s okay with an Adam and Eve but he’s saying the

[00:14:05] beginning happened a long time ago are we just saying that Jesus misspoke in this situation or what what are we

[00:14:10] saying I that’s how you read it is is it the beginning of Earth or is it the beginning of

[00:14:17] mankind well that would that uh if if you’re a Jewish you know boy growing up

[00:14:23] in in uh you know Israel at the time of Christ it’s well known among Hebrews

[00:14:30] among Hebrew Scholars that they believe that sixth day creation was a literal creation they didn’t this now we we we

[00:14:37] could say okay maybe they misunderstood science but this is what they really took I mean in the Hebrew lexicon it

[00:14:43] specifically says that yes six days and there are many Jewish

[00:14:49] schols I’m I’m referencing yam but but more more importantly what I’m referencing is is that it would be

[00:14:57] very uh it would would be very strange for a Hebrew boy in first century you

[00:15:04] know Palestine to to think that that wasn’t six days to

[00:15:10] say oh no no no that’s not that’s not the beginning the beginning was far before that um so so that that just

[00:15:16] wouldn’t be the case Jesus think to that to that point though at the same time like the this young Hebrew boy years and

[00:15:23] years ago that that you’re referencing is they didn’t even know that we revolved around the Sun so in general I

[00:15:30] don’t think that the Bible functions or was written to function as a book of science as we understand it as more as

[00:15:37] it is written so that we may understand God and we may understand Chris but do

[00:15:43] you think Jesus words are actually authentic do you think that’s

[00:15:49] what he said in the beginning he made them male and female referencing the six days of creation I don’t think he was

[00:15:56] referencing a direct I don’t I’m having trouble seeing the correlation between in the beginning God made man right the

[00:16:03] the literal or he saying but God made days in 6 24-hour periods as we

[00:16:09] understand it today like I I don’t see the the direct to that I guess what I’m trying to say is is that if Jesus is

[00:16:15] referencing this as an actual historical event that actually took place how would you deal with that as somebody like

[00:16:22] Daryl faul who says no no that’s not actually the beginning there was another beginning that took place

[00:16:29] or would you say Jesus misspoke or I just feel like it would be very difficult for me personally to read that

[00:16:37] and then say well either Jesus made a mistake Jesus you I don’t know what I would say

[00:16:44] I’m taking him at his word I don’t think I ever claimed that Jesus made a mistake no no you never did you never did yeah

[00:16:50] and what I what I would claim though is that we may have made a mistake in

[00:16:55] understanding what he meant as in in the beginning of God’s reaction or God’s

[00:17:00] interaction with mankind itself right so Adam and Eve itself um there’s another popular theory

[00:17:07] that between like day four millions or potentially billions of years could have passed and I’d like to get into the the

[00:17:14] actual science behind why I think the Earth is old as it is and and i’ love to hear your your rebuttal to these um or

[00:17:23] the supposed evidence that I’ve seen um yes absolutely I think that would even be a good transition into that

[00:17:29] radiometric dating um we’re able to detect how things how old like specific

[00:17:35] meteorites or sedimentary layers or rocks are based on the half-life of the uranium in it um so we have tons of

[00:17:43] samples now up into the hundreds of of rocks that appear to be 4.5 to 4.6

[00:17:51] billion years old so my question there is okay this is a repeatable observable

[00:17:57] science that suggests an old Earth if the Earth isn’t actually that old why

[00:18:03] would God seemingly deceive us into you know we have a testable observable and

[00:18:10] repeatable process that’s suggesting an old Earth why does it appear that way if the Earth isn’t actually that

[00:18:17] old well I would say that God is not trying to deceive anybody I would just say the devil is trying to deceive

[00:18:23] people because the devil is a liar and so he’s going to take some something

[00:18:29] that if explained properly wouldn’t be a problem and he’s going to twist it and

[00:18:34] do what he can to try to manipulate people to think things that aren’t true and I think he does that all the time um

[00:18:40] so radio isotope dating I’ve interviewed quite a few few people on this including

[00:18:45] um people who have worked directly in radioisotope Labs actually um measuring

[00:18:53] the amount of parent and daughter Isotopes in things like carbon 14

[00:18:59] uranium potassium argon ridium strontium all these sorts of things so the the

[00:19:06] difficulty is is that it’s very inconsistent so if you if you take these

[00:19:11] rocks and you do them there’s a lot that goes into that so I I interviewed this guy and he said look when you take a

[00:19:17] rock to one of these Labs you have to write in how old you think it is and he

[00:19:22] goes and they literally play with the dials until these come out right he also said that you know there’s a tremendous

[00:19:30] amount of inconsistency so for example if you bring a rock to a lab you have to

[00:19:35] assume the amount of parent and daughter isotopes that The Rock started with so what I mean by that is let’s say you’re

[00:19:41] you’re doing something like um potassium argon you have to assume the amount of

[00:19:47] potassium that started in the Rock and the amount of argon that’s in the Rock

[00:19:52] because if you don’t know the initial conditions then there’s no way to tell how much of potassium has changed into argon because you don’t know what what

[00:19:59] it started with so you have to assume that and then the second assumption you have to make is that all the daughter

[00:20:06] atoms meaning all the Argon came from radioactive decay in

[00:20:12] that rock where in fact you can actually have tons of contamination so water leeching in and out of the rock can

[00:20:17] actually pull um pull in and pull out Isotopes which will change so it’s like

[00:20:24] a contaminated rock you don’t you don’t know if it’s been constant the whole time and the rate can change because

[00:20:30] potassium argon has a crazy huge halflife and so you’re assuming that the

[00:20:36] rate that you see right in front of you has been constant uh forever and they’ve only been doing this for about a 100

[00:20:42] years and you’re trying to extrapolate that out billions of years so there’s three big assumptions you have to make

[00:20:48] and none of those assumptions are provable and so you have a a really difficult time now I’m not saying that radioisotope dating isn’t reliable in

[00:20:55] the sense that they can’t accurately measure the Isotopes in in the Rock they actually can and it’s actually it’s done

[00:21:01] very well but what they can’t do is prove those three assumptions initial starting conditions no Conta

[00:21:08] contamination and a constant rate of Decay they can’t do it um there’s there’s literally no way to go back in

[00:21:14] time and figure that out and and along those same lines I’ll give you one of the evidences that radioisotope dating

[00:21:21] actually proves the Earth is Young they’ve done this c-14 because of its halflife changes into n14

[00:21:29] so what happens with c14 is it its Half-Life is relatively short compared to many of these other Isotopes it can

[00:21:37] only last a maximum of 200,000 years and so the United States Geological Survey

[00:21:43] was digging out like they drill down these these Wells right they go way way

[00:21:48] down deep in the earth and um what they were able to do was pull diamonds out of the earth and

[00:21:55] also pull rocks from way down to the Earth so if you look at the strata as

[00:22:00] you go down in the strata the carbon 14 should get lower and lower the farther

[00:22:06] down you go because supposedly the farther down in the strata you are the older it is so if c14 has been these

[00:22:12] layers have laid down over billions and billions millions of years at the bottom you should have no

[00:22:18] c14 at all and you should see a consistent pattern of increasing c14 As

[00:22:25] you move up in the layers well what they actually found and this was done again these were pulled

[00:22:30] from the United States Geological Survey what they actually found was a consistent amount of c14 from the bottom

[00:22:37] all the way to the top and what that actually means is first of all the Earth can’t be over 200,000 years old and

[00:22:43] second of all all these layers were down laid down successively in quick in a

[00:22:48] very quick manner right which would justify the worldwide flood what’s that I said that’d be the flood and then you

[00:22:55] you said that ex exactly the other thing they did was that they got the diamonds down in the lowest layers like literally

[00:23:02] supposed to be diamonds are supposed to have been made at the very beginning of Earth history crushed by the layers so

[00:23:07] what they expected was no c14 in the diamonds and um they ended up uh and

[00:23:13] diamonds can’t be contaminated that’s the other thing because diamonds are so hard you can’t have water leech things

[00:23:18] in and out so they know that whatever’s in there is original so they expected no c-14 and diamonds CU these are supposed

[00:23:24] to be millions of years old well what they ended up finding was plenty of c14 and the Diamonds again proving that

[00:23:30] there’s no way the Earth can be over 200,000 years old or that c14 should all be gone so I I actually think radio

[00:23:37] isotope dating um is incredibly supportive of um a recent creation yeah

[00:23:45] interesting because what I’ve read is it doesn’t mention a lot of that and

[00:23:51] the available data to our even just Google like how accurate is radioisotope dating does radio isotype uh dating

[00:23:58] suggest just a 4.5 billion year old Earth the the stuff that’s going to come up is is yes and I I see radiometric

[00:24:05] dating is highly accurate for determining the age of rocks with air margins typically between two and 5% so

[00:24:11] what I’m reading the the published and peer-reviewed things that I’m reading

[00:24:18] are hey we we’ve done this with tons and tons and tons of specimens

[00:24:23] and many of them suggest that you know the oldest ones that we found and

[00:24:28] meteors which I think is a really interesting one um suggests that the world is you know the oldest ones are

[00:24:34] are 4.5 to 4.54 billion years old so that’s heard of what you said yeah and

[00:24:40] and I have actually quite a few other examples of this so another uh data set they actually they actually did um

[00:24:48] radioisotope dating on Rocks coming out of Mount St Helens so so what they wanted to do was they said look it we’ve

[00:24:55] got a rock here that was created by Mount St Helens it’s only 10 years old

[00:25:00] they took it to the lab didn’t tell them it’s only 10 years old and ask them it ended up dating into the billions of

[00:25:06] years old so there’s something wrong here and again I think a lot of it has to do with the three unprovable

[00:25:12] assumptions which are you have to know the initial conditions which obviously that rock was contaminated right but the

[00:25:18] question then becomes how many other rocks are contaminated that you’re dating right people might say well it’s just that rock that was contaminated but

[00:25:25] you don’t know because you weren’t there so how are you going to prove that that’s the real difficulty with

[00:25:31] radioisotope dating they also dated two parts of a mammoth I have the details on this and the the mammoth dated thousands

[00:25:38] of years different from its skin to other parts of it and so again um

[00:25:45] clearly there’s something that’s not lining up here uh with that um again I I

[00:25:51] do believe that they can accurately measure the Isotopes within the rock or within the bone but uh those three

[00:25:59] unprovable assumptions create a pretty big problem if you don’t have some

[00:26:05] other some other tool by which to gauge it and usually what they do is they’ll say this Rock was found in this strata

[00:26:12] so let’s say I F I find a rock in a strata that’s 200 million years old so

[00:26:17] what I I take it to the lab and I say this was found in a strata 200 million years old they go oh if they get things

[00:26:24] that are off that then they fit fiddle with the knobs until they get something

[00:26:29] that’s accurate um and and then they they go okay yeah the rock is blah blah

[00:26:34] blah blah blah but it’s based off of the scientist first telling them here’s where I found it that’s why I think it’s

[00:26:41] this old and then they they work on that and I know that sounds crazy because

[00:26:46] it’s like what but um on one of my sh podcasts I actually interviewed a

[00:26:52] physicist who this is what he did all the time he worked in the largest radio isotope the most wellknown it’s I

[00:26:58] believe it’s in New York most well-known radioisotope lab in the world and

[00:27:05] purposely was trying to figure out what is going on and would bring in rocks not tell the right ages uh you know not tell

[00:27:11] the right layers and get completely different numbers than what you know he knew to be true about that rock or

[00:27:18] whatever it is so where would I go to find the information on the mount s

[00:27:23] Helen case and Willie Mammoth case you specifically referen

[00:27:29] um before yeah yeah yeah so there was a project done called the rate project r a

[00:27:34] t uh This was done by a bunch of um PhD scientists they’re all creationists and

[00:27:41] they set out to specifically deal with radioisotope dating their goal was to figure out what is going on here um and

[00:27:48] just look up r at I’ve interviewed multip um one is a geophysicist um there’s a bunch of

[00:27:55] geologists on this all PhD scientists that worked on this project it was an eight-year project that um they were

[00:28:03] specifically identifying these things one of their biggest findings that they absolutely 100% confirmed was that

[00:28:10] depending on the environment of the rock the rate of um Decay actually changes um

[00:28:17] and so what that means is really throws off because if you’re extrapolating back billions of years

[00:28:23] there’s just no way you can say that the rate is constant it’s not possible that’s true interesting and and I think

[00:28:29] my my initial antenna went up there when I heard okay eight creationists and they’re going out chances are they’re

[00:28:35] being funded to go find that conclusion well this is a difficulty

[00:28:41] right yeah everybody’s funded by somebody who has conclusion exactly and

[00:28:47] so that’s why it’s so important to look at the data and say okay um is this trustworthy data but the sad reality is

[00:28:55] that no matter where we go the information is biased and and so we just have to do the best we can to keep

[00:29:02] digging until you know we’re able to make a a good informed decision but but

[00:29:08] I recognize that I recognize that I you know it’s really funny because creation.com actually has a um actually

[00:29:16] has a page dedicated to these are bad arguments like it’s this huge page of

[00:29:23] bad science bad science bad science and it’s all on them they’re saying do not

[00:29:28] use this argument this is not a good creation argument um you need to get rid of this this is Boney and so you’re

[00:29:36] right in in saying that you know people are biased so I and I don’t want to say

[00:29:42] that as as to discredit them um because the same comes from you know the the

[00:29:47] evidence that I’ve got from as well but um yeah I do think there’s something to the degree of like we have this very

[00:29:54] large portion of the scientific Community um many of which I I’d say are are more unbiased than eight

[00:30:01] creationists being funded to go find uh you know something to support that well

[00:30:06] I would disagree with that yeah and again like the the not to say that all

[00:30:11] secular science is is gonna be I I’d say the majority of it is is with a large

[00:30:16] bias well there is a there is a huge website it’s a secular website not a Christian website it’s called retraction

[00:30:22] watch I found I stumbled on it one time when I was doing research never heard of it’s It’s a site dedicated to all the

[00:30:28] fraud in science this is not a Christian website these are guys that got sick of finding out that things weren’t true

[00:30:34] that had been studied and they list all the people that are either put on

[00:30:40] probation their Journal articles are retracted their act there’s people that are put in prison um falsifying data uh

[00:30:48] one of them I was reading um falsified data he had $.1 million in Grants and he

[00:30:54] was motivated by that grant money and so uh it was actually a cancer research Professor sadly who’s you know rumming

[00:31:02] up data just so he can keep the grants coming in and uh ended up being put in prison for that so yeah that’s how that

[00:31:10] happens yeah yeah really interesting though I had not I’m not familiar with the the cases you have presented at all

[00:31:18] so I’m goingon to get educated on that um I think the next thing that I’m interested in is the idea of these

[00:31:24] vestigal structures that we see in Wales that’s suggest that they come from uh

[00:31:30] land mammals because they’re entirely not used um the pelvic bone specifically

[00:31:35] I’m referencing uh and there’s also these gen now you’re talk you’re talking about what looked like leftover legs and

[00:31:42] whales uh yeah it’s a it’s a pelvic bone that like doesn’t work it it doesn’t

[00:31:47] function for anything and then there’s so just so you know as far as I know on that one that’s actually um those

[00:31:54] there’s no evidence that those are leftover legs that was debunked quite a while ago what that actually is is it’s

[00:32:00] a it’s a pivot point for reproduction so if they didn’t have those the whales actually couldn’t pivot in order to

[00:32:08] that’s kind of you know kind of graphic uh uh it’s whale whale’s ability to have

[00:32:13] sex um and without that it wouldn’t they wouldn’t be able to reproduce so I heard

[00:32:19] that and and I I kind of went down that rabbit hole there but there’s I didn’t see any sufficient evidence that to

[00:32:25] suggest that um that they actually work in that manner it’s more of a

[00:32:30] theory that’s you know this is what they’re used for but but no actual direct link to the use case there I’ll

[00:32:37] look I’ll look that up a little further but I’m pretty sure that’s the case it’s in it’s in um I believe corpuses

[00:32:45] Dolphins uh killer whale I’ll send you the link to my fighting on that as well so you can kind of see where I’m coming

[00:32:51] from in that regard sure um and then the other thing is Stellar development I think that’s the the third uh

[00:32:58] big piece of evidence that is constantly presented to me for an old Earth idea um

[00:33:03] and The Parallax method and these are hard things to understand do you are you

[00:33:09] familiar with Stellar development in The Parallax method in terms of understanding the Earth’s position of

[00:33:14] our orbit to see stars that are light years and light years and light years away we wouldn’t be able to see these

[00:33:21] stars um if the Earth was an x amount of years old because of the time it would take light to travel to us

[00:33:28] yeah so um I’m familiar with this discussion um but I would say there’s

[00:33:35] pretty good answers to this they’re theoretical but I think the answers are

[00:33:40] sufficient um so can you break that down a little bit just so our listeners know what you’re talking about yeah so I’ll

[00:33:47] try to make it super simple and again I’m not an astronomer so no that’s okay yeah but the idea is as the Earth

[00:33:53] rotates around the Sun um we’re able to in in certain positions of the Earth’s

[00:33:59] orbit around the Sun the refraction of light off of it we’re able to see different stars from galaxies away at

[00:34:06] different points and these stars like with the technology we have now um we

[00:34:12] shouldn’t be able to see them because light wouldn’t have traveled to us in 6,000 years if that makes sense so yes

[00:34:20] it does the the distance of these these Stars if the if the Earth was only 6,000

[00:34:25] years old we shouldn’t be able to see them because light shouldn’t have traveled to us in that amount of time

[00:34:31] and to that point there’s a not a lot of astronomers that are young Earth creationists but a lot of the uh a lot

[00:34:38] of the astrometer as astrometer a lot of them um end up

[00:34:44] taking a more theistic evolutionary side which is interesting because they don’t necessarily take an atheist side um but

[00:34:52] a lot of these guys are are on the side of hey this is really interesting this is really compelling

[00:34:58] evidence um and that leads them down into the you know we we can’t be here uh

[00:35:04] without some form of divine and uh like specific

[00:35:09] creation yeah yeah I actually have a show coming up where um I’m in I’m interviewing a um

[00:35:17] cosmologist who has documented all the different um Christian um basically you

[00:35:25] know astronomers and so forth who have studied space that’s coming up I think in like two weeks but but

[00:35:33] um so so I’ve interviewed uh cosmologist

[00:35:38] physicist uh Jason Lyle you may have heard of him I don’t know but um he’s pretty well known um among creationist

[00:35:44] circles and he is um pretty prolific in his writing he’s done uh tons of things

[00:35:51] one of the big things that came out recently was the James Webb Telescope I actually interviewed him on that because

[00:35:56] um he specifically talks about the when they when they put the James web telescope out in space

[00:36:03] it’s the most powerful telescope that’s ever been built and they thought we’re

[00:36:08] going to be able to see to the beginning the origins of the universe because the farther you can see into space what they

[00:36:15] believe is the farther back in time you can see and so they had ex they had

[00:36:20] postulated okay what we’re going to see are um you know we’re going to see a

[00:36:26] pattern of uh star age as you move out well it

[00:36:31] turns out the pattern was completely uh false and uh Jason Lyall had predicted

[00:36:37] what would be seen if creation was true and it turned out it was exactly the same which was a uniform um uh uniform

[00:36:45] like layout of the stars with different ages all over the place so there was no

[00:36:51] pattern of young to old or old to Young it was just all kinds of stars with all

[00:36:57] different ages in their well what they call ages but um you know that the the

[00:37:04] postulate is a star changes color over the the span of its age and as it burns

[00:37:10] out right it changes color and so what they saw were many stars in different stages of you know supposed star age

[00:37:17] kind of development and it it debunked it it really frustrated a lot of people a lot of the Big Bang proponents were

[00:37:24] extremely frustrated by this because they said this is this is complet completely messing up the theory of the Big Bang um like big bang and so the

[00:37:32] singularity Theory which is like microwave background that suggests that we expanded uh from a very hot dense

[00:37:39] State um over a time so it would be uniform of you know so basically what what the

[00:37:47] Bible says is that God created all the Universe um you know in a day yeah the

[00:37:53] Stars right so what he’s arguing is that’s actually accurate it’s an accurate depiction of what we actually

[00:37:59] see um in there right so now regarding Starlight what this so disclaimer this

[00:38:07] is purely theoretical it’s an attempt to explain why we can see Starlight even

[00:38:13] though um it’s billions of years away so you’re right this is the most popular

[00:38:19] thing for people to bring up when it comes to Scientific evidence that shows the universe is old it’s compelling

[00:38:26] evidence too so here’s the issue though right um okay so I’ll just explain it the way

[00:38:34] that people generally say it they say okay if the star is billions of years away the light takes billions of years

[00:38:39] to travel to earth to our eyes so we can see it therefore you can’t have a 6,000 year creation because the light wouldn’t

[00:38:45] have time to get from the star to our eyes to be able to see it the other thing that’s brought up is that we

[00:38:50] actually see stars exploding and so some people will say look it if the stars

[00:38:55] exploding um that’s even more evidence that God didn’t just put the light there

[00:39:00] because we’re actually seeing the star exploding in our um time frame which

[00:39:06] means it had to have happened in this billions of years okay so but there’s a lot of problems with this uh first of

[00:39:13] all um there is something called the um basically according to scientists

[00:39:20] cosmologist secular cosmologist the universe the the light has currently traveled farther than it should be able

[00:39:26] to travel so their argument is that the universe is somewhere around 15 billion years old but the light has traveled 28 billion

[00:39:34] light years um and so they have their own problem that’s not typically brought

[00:39:39] up it’s typically ignored because it is a problem but from that perspective both creationists and secular cosmologists

[00:39:47] have a big problem with how light travels through space and the amount of time it takes for light to get

[00:39:53] anywhere I would argue this though um and I heard this from I believe I had a guy on recently Russell humph he’s a

[00:40:00] physicist um who argues that just like God created man didn’t create man as a

[00:40:07] baby right um he actually created him as a full-grown man but he he says something a little differently he thinks

[00:40:14] that what happened was there was like it’s basically like a time-lapse video that as God was making things they were

[00:40:21] you know how you you’ll do a timelapse video of a plant growing out of the ground real quick right well he says

[00:40:27] that this is how he believes God created everything so Adam and Eve when he created them they went through all the

[00:40:33] stages of a development but stopped as adults but it went very rapidly until

[00:40:40] they got to that point right whatever whatever point that is same he the same

[00:40:45] thing has happened in in terms of evolution just like like just just

[00:40:51] spitballing here right yeah the idea of going from you know this to this in the

[00:40:57] time lapse that you’re suggesting in a theory right could the same thing have not happened

[00:41:04] for species and Mankind in general well if God used Evolution it it

[00:41:10] certainly could have happened right but the the the question is not really could

[00:41:16] it have happened because God can do things however he wants to the question really is is did God do it that way and

[00:41:24] for me personally in my studies I find the comp the evidence um extremely compelling that he

[00:41:31] did not do that darl Faulk um is a geneticist which I find very interesting

[00:41:37] when I was reading about that I thought that was very interesting I’ve had quite a few geneticists on my program one of

[00:41:42] my favorite geneticists is Dr John Sanford he’s a Cornell University Professor 27 genetic patents uh he was a

[00:41:52] a uh professor at Cornell University had multiple business he started in genetics very very very well credential

[00:41:59] geneticist his argument is there is no way um he said genetically uh it completely disproves

[00:42:06] Evolution um and he has a book called genetic entropy I highly recommend you read it it’s thin it’s not thick but it

[00:42:13] is really powerful um and he he he shows from genetics that not only is evolution

[00:42:21] impossible but that we had to be created recently this has because interesting um

[00:42:29] this is what he says he says that um the human the human body has mutations this

[00:42:37] is how somebody like darl Faulk would say people evolved they evolved through genetic mutations the body takes

[00:42:44] advantage of those gen genetic mutations creates new information in the DNA and advances the organism it becomes better

[00:42:51] able to survive survival of the fittest natural selection so that’s what darl faul would say but what what John Sanford says is

[00:42:58] that these genetic mutations are Far and Away harmful not beneficial meaning every time you get

[00:43:05] 10,000 genetic mutations you might get one that’s slightly positive but the

[00:43:10] rest of them are all negative and he says you will kill the organism far

[00:43:16] faster than you will advance the organism and and he says based on that

[00:43:23] honestly we couldn’t even be alive much longer than 6,000 years because we would would be producing humans that have so

[00:43:28] many genetic mutations they literally wouldn’t be able to survive and it’s interesting because I actually went and

[00:43:35] visited a geneticist my daughter has cystic fibrosis and I asked the geneticist now this woman was just a

[00:43:41] doctor she was a genetic doctor she started off the conf this is what she said to me so she knows no nothing about

[00:43:47] where I’m coming from or nothing she’s completely unbiased she’s just doing her job so I my wife and I went to see the

[00:43:53] geneticist because cystic fibrosis is caused by genetic mutation so she she says to

[00:44:00] me um we we all have many mutations in our bodies and she said your daughter

[00:44:05] happens to have one on both chromosomes which means it’s manifesting cystic fibrosis she said you and your wife are

[00:44:12] carriers it’s not manifested in you but your daughter had a 25% chance and she

[00:44:19] got it and we didn’t know we were carriers and I I said to her she said

[00:44:25] now now I said this because I was very curious to talk to a geneticist without any bias so I said to her um how many

[00:44:34] good mutations are there um you know how many I I just was curious what are the

[00:44:39] good mutations do you know of any and she she looked at me for a little bit she thought and she goes you know I I

[00:44:46] can’t think of any but I’m sure there are some because that’s how we evolved right and I said yeah that’s why I have

[00:44:52] problems with Evolution and she changed the subject right away and and then I said a little bit later I said he I’m

[00:45:00] just curious because we were continuing this discussion about undirect mutations she said I said If a person had

[00:45:07] absolutely no mutations in their body would they be extremely healthy or extremely unhealthy now remember

[00:45:13] interesting question yeah yeah now remember Evolution says that undirected mutations are what drove us to evolve so

[00:45:20] evolution is treating undirected mutations as very beneficial meaning if you have a lot of them you should be

[00:45:26] doing really really well on the other hand creation says God created everything perfectly no undirected

[00:45:32] mutations a perfect body and over time we’d be getting progressively worse by accumulating genetic mutations so they

[00:45:39] come from two totally different directions and from a if from a hypothesis perspective so let’s say

[00:45:44] we’re we’re scientists and we’re hypothesizing about what we’re going to find right from the creationist

[00:45:50] perspective her answer should be somebody with absolutely no mutations is going to be the healthiest

[00:45:57] but if from but from a evolutionary hypothesis she’s going to say the person with the most mutations is going to

[00:46:03] generate the most upward Evolution well without me giving any background or

[00:46:09] context she said I guess somebody with no mutations just confirming what John

[00:46:15] Sanford writes in his book which is that the accumulation of undirected mutations

[00:46:21] is actually killing the organism not helping it move forward and so this

[00:46:27] along with many other reasons I is why I I can’t if you if you also look up Dr

[00:46:34] James tour um he’s one of the top 50 scientists in the world he’s a he’s a

[00:46:39] molecular um organic synthetic chemist he makes molecules for a living that’s what he does he says and he outlines

[00:46:47] this scientifically I mean in Greater detail probably than anybody I’ve ever seen he shows why there is absolutely no

[00:46:55] way that Evolution could work um and I I think it would be really interesting to have Daryl Faulk and Dr Tor have a

[00:47:02] conversation fantastic that would be really interesting um but uh so anyway that’s

[00:47:10] for me the scientific evidence is just overwhelmingly supportive of creation interesting yeah yeah

[00:47:19] so uh to do that is a lot of that you just don’t

[00:47:25] hear yeah no you don’t you don’t and it’s taken me a while to accumulate this information because I just keep going

[00:47:31] after people who are scientists who are well credential that I feel like hey you’re somebody I can actually have a

[00:47:37] good conversation with but but um for one reason or another that information

[00:47:43] is not um easily accessible I mean creation.com uh AIG uh icr.org they have

[00:47:51] a lot of science there’s a new group called logos research Associates not to be confused with biologos but logos

[00:47:57] research Associates all PhD scientists that are creationists and give the scientific research that supports

[00:48:04] creation but Blake I thanks for taking the time to talk I feel like I talk way too much but um no worries but uh anyway

[00:48:12] if you ever want to talk more or if there’s if you have any bump into any other questions i’ I’d love to shoot you

[00:48:18] some information if uh if uh you’re you’re willing so of course yeah I got

[00:48:23] uh some time now to in the little bit of downtime I do have to go I know right gez yeah we’re going after you you are

[00:48:31] you’re you’re uh I should probably like this this will probably become some super famous uh interview down the road

[00:48:38] when um when you’ve got like this multi- uh you know billion dollar company or whatever you do so anyway yeah well I’ll

[00:48:45] be uh you know I’m really excited about this uh because it’s something for me to go ask the right questions the with

[00:48:51] different people yeah and and go do research and and studies that I’m not Amar with so yeah this went how I was

[00:49:00] kind of hoping it would where I just go huh okay well haven’t heard of that that’s fantastic that’s really cool yeah

[00:49:05] and I think you know what I really like I really appreciate you ref referring me to that book because um what I really

[00:49:11] like what what I really liked about it was the willingness for two people that disagree passionately um to actually

[00:49:18] have a civil conversation and go um hey what we’re here for is to know the truth

[00:49:25] and we’re going to do our best to get at it even though Daryl and Daryl and uh Todd didn’t ultimately uh come to an

[00:49:32] agreement I think it was still really cool how they respectfully were able to dialogue over that so thank you for

[00:49:38] referring that to me of course yeah and I think the the greatest thing in general is like um we’re not going to be

[00:49:47] ever out of place where everybody’s going to agree um but if we can get to a uh mutual respect and understanding for

[00:49:55] especially other Christians beliefs yes I want to destigmatize the idea of you

[00:50:01] know nobody’s the fool and nobody’s the heretic um but instead we’re both pursuing truth and and rather than you

[00:50:08] know one’s right and one’s wrong I like the idea of everybody knows the evidence and can draw their own conclusions yes

[00:50:15] and every and and we all we all are humble and and learning you know I I I learned so much just from the the people

[00:50:22] that I’ve had an opportunity to interview even atheists who stumped me and I was like oh man right um but but

[00:50:29] I’m I’m friends with them and we have a relationship and um I’m excited to learn

[00:50:35] from them and they’re actually willing to listen and learn from me too so I mean you can’t beat that right yeah so

[00:50:40] awesome perfect well thanks for having me on I really appreci thanks Blake okay God bless you man have a great night have a good one you too bye- bye when

[00:50:47] you need tires or service count on Conover tires wheels and service in Oceanside for a full range of affordable

[00:50:53] options in all the brands you trust see their great customer reviews and special offers online hours Tuesday through

[00:51:00] Friday 7:30 to 5:30 and Saturdays 7:30 to 5 call Dan and his team at 760- 4391

[00:51:07] 1631 Conover tires wheels and service 2405 Oceanside Boulevard in Oceanside

[00:51:13] 760 4391 1631 how can you live in San Diego and miss out on enjoying the water

[00:51:20] fast lane kayaking sells popular hobiecat kayaks that you pedal not paddle that means your hands are left

[00:51:27] free for fishing and fun just throw these on your roof rack they’re light and they’re easy to use and maintain

[00:51:33] just rinse them off try one free on a demo ride for 36 years Ron and Debbie

[00:51:38] Lane have served San Diego with fun familyfriendly water sports of all kinds learn more fastlanes sailing.com 619 222

[00:51:49] 0766 hi this is Jason Hall president of Team Home Loans a branch of synergy 1

[00:51:54] lending I just want to take this opportunity to think Kevin Conover for the profound impact he’s had on mine and

[00:52:00] my wife’s spiritual life as well as being an incredible teacher while our kids were his students his knowledge and

[00:52:05] passion have taught us all how important it is to be Defenders of our faith it’s our honor and privilege to support Kevin

[00:52:11] and his show it is our sincere hope and prayer that you will continue to learn to be Defenders of your faith through

[00:52:16] Kevin’s radio show and through his educate for Life teachings thank you Kevin from the hall family and team Home

[00:52:23] Loans educate for life helps you build your life on the rock LG equipment helps Builders build on good soil Luke

[00:52:30] Gibson’s team at LG equipment is your local source for grading demolition hauling and more learn about their bulk

[00:52:35] water services from trucks to tankers to Towers at rwater tower.com get your

[00:52:41] questions answered call LG equipment at 619 988 924 learn more at LG

[00:52:48] equipment.com 619 988 924