(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

All right, guys, we are live at Framing the World. Thank you so much for tuning in to today's program. We're going to be talking with Dr. Grady McMurtry today. He is a former evolutionist, and I'm really excited to talk with him and just get his perspective on creation, evolution, and a bunch of other things. So we're also going to be taking questions and answers, call-ins, later on in the program. So if you want to call in to the show, you can call in at 480-519-4999, and we'll take your question. If you have a question, try to stump us, man. And when I say us, I don't mean us, I mean Matt Powell and Dr. Grady. That's who you guys got to stump. But it should be a great show, guys. Thank you so much for tuning in. Make sure you share this on your social media accounts, share it on your Facebook. It should be a really interesting stream. So we also have Alex in the studio today, so he's going to be taking your phone calls and he's going to be doing the technical stuff. So if everything goes wrong, you can blame Alex. Awesome, guys. Well, thank you, Matt, for joining us here today. If you want to first introduce Dr. Grady and our show here today. Sure thing. Well, I just want to say thank you for opening up the studio, Paul, and letting us come on. So obviously, about a year and a half ago, we put out a film called Science Falsely So-Called, and that film is actually for sale on framing the world. And so if you guys haven't gotten a copy of that film, I highly recommend you get a copy of it. In the atheist community, what they did is they took and they tried to rebut it. And we didn't have very many creation scientists in the film. And so I decided to go ahead and make a sequel. And in the sequel, we're featuring Dr. Grady McMurtry. And we wanted to bring in some of the bigger bulldogs of young earth creationism to defend the biblical account of creation. And so in the studio today, folks, we're joined by Dr. Grady himself. He came here in person for this event. And so Dr. Grady, if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself and telling a little bit about yourself and the ministry you have. Sure. I'm Dr. Grady McMurtry. I'm with Creation Worldview Ministries out of Orlando, Florida. We're available on the web at creationworldview.org. I was born and raised as an evolutionist in California. I was raised on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. And when I was not in public school learning evolution back in the 50s, because that's all they taught even back then, I was in the paleontology laboratories at the University of California, Berkeley, learning about dinosaurs, fossils, evolutionary theory from PhDs when I was only in elementary school. And indeed, I learned so much about these things that at the age of eight, they started borrowing me from one classroom to the other. And I started teaching evolution to the other children and started teaching about dinosaurs, fossils, evolutionary theory, because I knew more about than the teachers did. And I went on to get my science degrees as an evolutionist. I believed in evolution. I taught it. I taught it from the seventh grade through the university level. But at the age of 27, as a good scientist should, in a search for truth, I was able to find out that truth is not a concept, that truth is a person. And that if you want to know all the truth there is in the world, all you have to do is ask that person into your life. And I did. But that just made me a saved evolutionist. And so I spent another 16 months looking at science afresh, looking at natural law, the natural processes, the physical evidence, which I was very familiar with, and came to the conclusion that there is no science to support evolution. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. It is a religion. It is not science. Evolution is irrational, unreasonable, illogical, and unscientific. And I became a biblical scientific creationist 45 years ago. And from that point on, I started teaching about creation, the truth of creation and the creator, his plan of salvation. And I was, I've been teaching about that both scientifically and biblically for the last 45 years. Moch, great thoughts, great thoughts. And so Dr. Grady, what is the number one set of proofs that you would bring forth to prove to somebody that dinosaurs and man lived together? Because obviously we as young earth creationists believe that dinosaurs and man walked to the earth at the same time. And so from a scientific standpoint, what would be one of the greatest evidence or some of the greatest evidences that dinosaurs and man truly did live together? Yeah, I think you have to make it more than one. It's just simply not one piece alone. The fact of the matter is, though, that we have reliable written human records. We have artifacts. We have art to prove that people and dinosaurs have lived together since their creation 6,000 years ago. Now, dinosaurs or their relatives were created on day five, day six of the week of creation. Those that live in the water, those that fly in the air are created on day five. And technically not dinosaurs, but they are reptilian and associated with the dinosaurs. And the terrestrial dinosaurs are created on day six. And they live with people. They were vegetarians. They were not carnivores. They were on the ark with Noah because they are unclean, and therefore one pair of each of the land-dwelling, air-breathing dinosaurs would be on the ark. They did reproduce after their own kind, and they are mentioned 10 times in biblical history after the flood, as late as Isaiah, for example. That's only 2,700 years ago. But while the Bible is reliable written human history, we also have much of the secular humanist, if you will allow me that, because people who believed in evolution. We have Greeks. We have Romans and others who wrote about dinosaurs alive at their time. If we take a look at Herodotus, the great Greek historian, 300 years after Isaiah, 2,400 years ago, he talks about flying reptiles, or flying serpents, or as it's called, flying dragons. A hundred years later, we have the armies of Alexander the Great as they approach northwestern India. They see dinosaurs. Josephus, the great first century secular historian, mentions them. I say secular in the sense that while he was born Jewish, he gave up Judaism. But he does write about them. At the same time, Pliny the Elder, a Roman naturalist at the same time, writes about, again, dinosaurs, or in his case, flying reptiles. Two hundred years later, there's another Roman naturalist, Flavius Philostratus, and he also talks about all of the dinosaurs that lived in India, that India was full of them. Every ridge had them. And they also lived in the swamps, there were those that were there, and that some of them had a crest on top of their head. Now that is a detail that tells you he also knew that there were dinosaurs that did not have a crest. Again, we have another gentleman that everybody's familiar with, Marco Polo. Now he left Europe in 1271. He arrived in western China, walking to China, and arrives in the spring of 1273, accurately describes a large two-legged dinosaur. In the year 1611, we have the official court records of the Emperor of China hiring a royal dragon, caregiver, or care feeder. Now dragon is simply the old word for dinosaur. The word dinosaur didn't come into existence until 1841. If we go back to England, in the chronicles of the Canterbury Cathedral, in the 1440s, there was a record of witnessing two dinosaurs fighting each other. In the late 1400s, up at Carlisle Cathedral, which is on the border with Scotland, the Christian bishop, Richard Bell, died. And on his tomb, there are two dinosaurs, and we can actually identify the species of one of them, because there's enough detail to do that. Now that, again, would be 500 years ago. And the last known reliable written human history of dinosaurs and people living together, that I know of, is actually from an evolutionary source, and that was back in 1883. Speaking of small armored dinosaurs living in South America, specifically Bolivia. Now that's reliable written history, but we also have art and artifacts. Now for instance, in the southwestern part of the United States, we have pictographs done by Native American Indians, such as in the Havasupai Indian Reservation on the west end of the Grand Canyon. Now I myself am a Native American Indian. Now Native American Indians from North America were not really that imaginative. We were really here mostly as placeholders for the land, waiting until Christianity would be brought here and then sent around the world. But South American Indians were imaginative. They had written alphabet, excellent mathematicians, good astronomers, built massive structures, pyramids, observatories, they had sports, etc. But North American Indians were not inventive in that sense. And their art was either drawing geometrics or weaving geometrics and what they saw. And on the wall at Havasupai Indian Reservation, there is an allosaurus or an edmontosaurus, something of that nature, a bipedal large dinosaur, depicted with humans and other creatures that still exist today. If we go to Utah and the arches area, not just the national park, but there's also state parks, there's monuments, etc. that have arches. And up there we find a very identifiable four-legged dinosaur on a wall etched with a large human figure. And it's clearly a dinosaur. If we start going to other locations around the world, we see actual statues in tombs in China of identifiable specific dinosaur species. The Middle East is fraught with these things. As a matter of fact, at the Ishtar Gate in Babylon, on the wall at the front of the gate, there are lions, there are oxen, and there are dragons or dinosaurs. And that image is found ubiquitously throughout the Middle East, even into Pompeii, for instance, or down into Egypt. If we go to Mexico, it was less than 60, 70 years ago that we found over 30,000 fired clay figurines that are pre-Columbian and show identifiable dinosaurs. The most interesting thing is a few do have people with the dinosaurs, but also some of them have dermal spines and some of them don't. Now, we only found out about 25 years ago that there were certain dinosaurs who had dermal spines, because dermal spines means it's entirely flesh. It's like the fin on the back of a shark. And so there's no bone there. It's not like a stegosaurus. These are simply fleshly things. And, well, these are being accurately depicted by pre-Columbian Indians before we ever found out about them, before we ever found their impressions in fossil records. Again, in Southeast Asia, you know that dragons are ubiquitous in the literature and in the art of Southeast Asia. We find what appears to be a baby stegosaur at Angkor Wat, but whether it is or not is kind of irrelevant. Dragons, again, are the ancient word for dinosaur. And the literature and art of Southeast Asia is replete with them. Now, myth always starts in reality. And therefore, when we see dragons being depicted, it means that initially they saw these kinds of creatures. Therefore, it doesn't matter what continent you go to, except Antarctica. We find these depictions. So we've got art, artifacts, and we have things like human footprints, footprint impressions found with trilobites, for example, in Utah. Now, according to evolutionary timescales, that is 300 million years before dinosaurs came into existence. There are locations in the world where we find dinosaur and human footprints together. In Russia, it's just one of those examples. I mentioned it because I'm a missionary who goes there. We really do have the evidence that people and dinosaurs live together. And the claim that evolutionists say that no live human being ever saw a live dinosaur is simply not true. Great thoughts. And once again, for those who are just now tuning into this broadcast, I'm joined by Dr. Grady McMurtry. He's a creation scientist. He's the leader and he's the founder of Creation Worldview Ministries based in Orlando, Florida. And so I would highly recommend checking out his website. It's got his contact information there, as well as his mission statements, statement of purpose, and so forth. And so I highly recommend you check out his content. He's going to be featured, like I said, in our latest documentary, Debunking the Atheist Community and Evolution. And so Dr. Grady, the next question that I have for you is what is genetic entropy and does genetic entropy prove or disprove evolution? You can disprove evolution from any field you want to. I can do it from a logic, from mathematics, from biology. But genetics is a particularly strong argument that disproves evolution. Now, I have debated evolutions about this. They have never come both an adequate answer. You see, evolutionists believe that everything happens by a random chance, that things get bigger, better, faster, smarter by random chance, that there cannot be any outside designer creator god. That defeated major evolutionists in debate because what is the only mechanism that they believe that in biology can cause a change of one creature into another, and that's the word mutation. So biologically, that is the only thing that can alter the DNA and cause a change. But the problem is that scientifically, the word mutation means copying error. Copying error. It's an error in copying the previously existing information. I can teach a child to defeat an evolutionist when it comes to genetics because when you think about it, what happens in genetics? We copy the previously existing information. We copy mama and papa. Then we have recombinations of that information, new combinations, but never new information. And when you copy something, you can either copy it perfectly, in which case there is no change, or imperfectly. You cannot copy something more perfectly. For $10, you can disprove evolution. Just get a very well-printed image, put it on a copying machine, buy a ream of paper, and start making copies, but throw each original away as you make copies and keep putting copies on top. And eventually, of course, the image disappears. That is what is occurring when it comes to what's called genetic entropy. Entropy is a word in physics from the second law of thermodynamics that measures the loss of information in a system over time. Now, evolutionists say that things start simple and become more complex by random chance. But you will never get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence. And so evolution flies in the face of real science. What occurs in genetic entropy is God created Adam, Eve, other creatures with the perfect genetic information and an excess of information, allowing for combinations to cause differences of appearance, but never differences of kinds. One kind will never evolve into another kind. Now, humans, we can get different ethnicities, but they're all 100% human. They can all interbreed. That's not evolution. But because of human sin in the Garden of Eden, everything started into a decay process. Now, genetic entropy is one of the strongest arguments that evolution is not true. Think with me for a moment. We now know, since the completion of the Human Genome Project, April 2003, that you and I, as human beings, are losing 1% to 2% of our genetic information for a generation. We're not getting bigger, better, faster, smarter. We're getting smaller, slower, dumber. And that genetic information that's being lost includes the genes that deal with intelligence. Therefore, it is absolutely true that your ancestors were individually smarter and knew more, had faster reaction times than we do today. Now, initially, this was a very small effect after sin entered into the universe and the decay process started. However, like a snowball rolling downhill, it gets bigger and bigger as it goes. Now, today, we know we are actually getting 60 to 100 permanent flaws in the genetic information per generation. We're going downhill. We're going downhill fast. This refutes evolution. It is also a scientific argument to prove that the Lord is coming back soon, because if genetic entropy were to continue, the human race would become extinct. But the Bible tells us that we will be here to meet the Lord when he returns. Amen. Amen. And like I said, folks, if you guys have any questions for Dr. Grady, please feel free to ask them in the chat, and what we'll go ahead and do is we'll have him answer those questions for you, him or myself. And so anyways, we have a few more questions for Dr. Grady here before we open up the Q&A. And the next question that we have for you, Dr. Grady, is what is one of the most single powerful evidences of young Earth creationism? Today, we have over 350 scientific arguments to prove that the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are young. Now, this is a category of evidence in science called geochronometers. And the word is simple to understand. Geo is the ancient word like geology, geography. It simply means Earth, matter, or universe. Chronometer simply means time clock, or time-measuring device. And so a geochronometer is an Earth time clock, or a universe time clock. Now, evolutionists believe in millions and billions of years by faith. They have deceived people into believing in millions and billions of years simply because they say it's millions and billions. The first question when somebody says, such and such happened 100 million years ago, is simply asked the question, were you there? Did you see it happen? How do you know it happened? There's no eyewitness according to your theory. And then we have the scientific evidence to disprove the millions and billions of years to begin with. Now, again, there are over 350. On my website, I have in my little Did You Know videos, which are free to anybody to access. It's under the free video section. I have over 150 short, one minute, two minute, three minute, that's showing up some things on the website there. But the Did You Know videos, there's 200 of them, plus some extra videos there that are all for free. And the 150, 106 or so geochronometers, these are single arguments that I only spend one, two, three, maybe four minutes on. But these are arguments that the Earth and the universe are young. For instance, the heat loss of the Earth, or barred spiral galaxies, lumpy rings around planets, the out of water layers, polystrate fossils, and so forth. But of over 350, I think the single strongest argument of all, in the top 10, assuredly, and I think number one, is the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. Now, we have been able to measure the decay of the Earth's magnetic field for basically 200 years. We know it decays the same way that a radioactive material decays. It has a half-life. The half-life is 1,470 years. Now, that means that every 1,470 years, we will lose half of the strength of the magnetic field. Now, just as evolutionists would try to backtrack radiometric dating processes, like potassium argon or carbon-14, we can backtrack the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. We're using the same methodology that they would use. If we go back to the time of Jesus walking the Earth, the Earth's magnetic field would be basically three times stronger than today. If we go back to the flood, it would be 10 times stronger than today. If we go back to creation 6,000 years ago, it would be 20 times stronger than today. Now, this is very important because the Bible says there was a time when people lived to be 900 years old. Now, I have material showing 19 scientific and medical reasons which, taken in combination, would allow people to live to be 900 years old. This is just one of them. But sometimes these things have multiple benefits. Now, the Earth's magnetic field. Strong magnetic field from conception to puberty increases longevity by the stabilization of chromosomes. But more importantly, it is the Earth's magnetic field that protects us from the deadly solar winds and galactic radiation that also hits the Earth. This is strongly ionized, deadly radiation. And the Earth's magnetic field is a buffer which God put in place to protect us. Now, it's losing strength over time at creation. Again, about 20 times stronger than today. If we go back further, let's think like an evolutionist would think. Let's go back a mere 10,000 years. Now, a mere 10,000 years to an evolutionist is nothing. But if we go back 10,000 years, the Earth's magnetic field would be 200 times stronger than today. Now, anybody here who's listening and had a medical examination called an MRI or MRT, well, they put your body inside a big electromagnet. And they see what you look like on the inside without cutting you open, which is certainly advantageous. But they don't hitch your body with 200 times the magnetic field strength of the Earth today. If they did, after the test was over, they'd wipe you off the wall like a bottle of ketchup. Every cell in your body would be simply shredded and blown out all over the place. No biological life form can exist in an intense magnetic field 200 times stronger than that of the Earth today. Living example. Take a look at the super collider over in CERN. Now, they do not allow anybody to be in the tunnels when it's operational, because the super magnets in there would kill them. This is simply a living example of what I'm talking about. Now, this shows you that life on Earth cannot even be 8,000 to 10,000 years old. It's perfectly consistent with an Earth of 6,000 years though. And I would point out that as the field continues to shrink, what's happening? Today, we only are at 5% of the value at creation. Now, one of the reasons that cancer rates are going straight up is because the field is weakening. It's letting more and more radiation through. And of course, radiations cause cancer. Now, it's not the only reason, but it's a contributing factor. It also proves to us that the Earth will not last very much longer, that indeed, couldn't last more than another 1,000 or 2,000 years, simply because when the field shrinks far enough, all that radiation will come through and kill anything that's alive on the Earth. We are living in a very short span of time, between 6,000 years ago and, I'm not saying when the Lord's coming back, but he's coming back, quote, unquote, soon. And this is a scientific proof for that. Well, it would definitely have to be within the next 2,000 years because the magnetic field is completely decaying now, so definitely the second law of thermodynamics seen within the Earth's atmosphere. So a lot of people claim that monkeys and humans are related, and I've heard evolutionists and atheists say, we're evolved apes. Don't you understand? We're evolved apes. We came from apes that came from apes and then became human. How do you refute the evolutionary ideas and hypotheses that have been introduced that state that we have come from monkeys? Well, first of all, Charles Darwin did say that humans came from monkeys with tails. However, his colleagues would later say he meant apes. They are separate entities, but Charles Darwin did write monkeys. I've read his book. Now, we can disprove that two ways. Let's do it genetically since we were just talking about genetics. How many of you listening have heard the absolutely absurd evolutionary statement that human beings and apes share 96, 97, 98, 99% the same genetic information? That is an absolutely absurd statement. It was never based in evidence. It was simply made up, and it was made up and spread out mostly in the 1990s, but the concept of this fraud goes back to the 1970s, but it is simply not true. The fact is that the more we know about the genomes of humans and apes, the more we know we are different. Now, I could go through the history of this, but let me just give you the basics, except because the end story is the best one. They convince people, they lie to people, they deceive people into saying we are 96, 97, 98, 99% the same as apes. The truth is that the more we find out, the more difference we find. Now, the number I'm about to give you is a stable number. When we take a look at the actual genomes, which we do now know of humans and the apes, we are only 70% the same as apes. We are not 99, 96. We're only 70. Now, if you want to use this measure of comparison, you have to remember that you're 50% the same as a banana. You're 60% the same as a chicken. You're 35% the same as a daffodil. You are 70% the same as a sea slug. You are, well, you're 88% genetically the same as a rat. You're 88% the same as a sea squirt. You're only 70% the same as an ape. Now, based on knowing the truth, which one would you say you were closer to? So genetically, we are nowhere close to being apes. You cannot use this particular method that they want to use to prove anything. It is a meaningless concept. And then, of course, the method that they use to deceive people the most about the evolution of some mammal, basically a primate, into humans is that they use the second worst method of proof in science. Now, it is their favorite method of proof, but it is the second worst method of proof in science. It is called the proof by ranking. Now, Matt, you and I were talking, and I do know that you have actually seen some evolutionists use this proof, called the proof by ranking, to try to prove evolution is true. But we discussed why it's no argument at all. The argument by ranking, R-A-N-K-I-N-G, is the concept that we can line things up in a logical order or a logical sequence. And that somehow or another, this proves that one evolved from the other. And it doesn't matter what they talk about. It doesn't matter whether it's dinosaurs, butterflies, tomatoes, people. It's irrelevant. This is their favorite method of proof. Now, it is a form of magic. Now, when I say magic here, I'm talking about stage magic. I'm talking about illusion and deception. And what they do is, regardless of what the organism is they're trying to prove evolved, and here we're talking about people, so they will take the skull or the skeleton of a gibbon, the skull of a chimpanzee, an orangutan, a gorilla, a human being, put them next to each other. And they say, well, you see how one evolved into the other. Now, excuse me. Everybody who's watching has seen special effects movies. I mean, the special effects movies today coming out of Hollywood are absolutely phenomenal. We have all seen the special effects movies of one creature becoming another, a human becoming another, a human becoming an animal, an animal becoming a human. And on the screen, it looks real. Now, we know it's fiction. We only buy into it for the purposes of the story, but we've all seen it. And today it looks really good. It's no more claymation from 1936. Now, when an evolutionist lines things up, again, the skull of a gibbon, a chimpanzee, orangutan, gorilla, human, and they say, you see how one evolved from the other if you make a special effects movie in your brain and you fill in the blanks in between the skulls with a special effects movie you make in your own brain, then you can see it. But what is the truth about it? The truth is, no, you didn't see how one evolved into the other. All you see is five skulls lined up in a logical order or sequence, but it doesn't prove that one came to the other. Think with me for just a moment. What if you were to go up into the forest, say, north of here, and you found the body of a dead deer, which, of course, died from old age? And all that's left is the bones. Now, if you find enough bones and teeth, you might be able to reasonably determine the age of the deer when it died. You might, if you have the bones appropriately, determine whether it was male or female. However, could you determine by looking at the bones whether it had ever had any offspring? And the answer is no. You don't know whether it had any offspring or not. And let me show you why this argument fails. What if I were to put a unicycle next to a bicycle, next to a motorcycle, next to an automobile, next to a Hummer, and then claim that Hummers evolved from unicycles because of the sequence that I've just shown you. I mean, it is a logical, orderly sequence, but it does not prove that Hummers evolved from unicycles. And I always like to make a proposition. I'm not a gambling person, but I have this proposition. If you will give me one skull each of 1,000 real different animals, the skull of a cat, a dog, a horse, a cow, a pig, elephant, et cetera, et cetera, using this method of proof, I will prove to you that apes did not evolve into people. I will prove to you that apes actually evolved into whales or I can pick and choose skulls, line them up in a logical sequence order and prove to you that apes did not evolve into people, that what really happened was apes evolved into elephants. You see, if I get to pick and choose the skulls and line them up in the order that I choose to and then get you to make that fake movie in your brain, you will fill in the gaps and you'll see it. But the truth is, no, there's no proof there to prove that any of them are connected to the other. And of course, that's what the Bible tells us, that God made each kind unique. It reproduces after its own kind and never becomes a different kind. That's even a law of science called the law of biogenesis. Awesome stuff. And once again, for those of you who are tuning in, we're joined by Dr. Grady McMurtry of Creation Worldview Ministries. Check out his website. We do have his website information. And what's the name of your, actually, nope, we got it up on the screen. And so make sure you guys subscribe to his material. Check him out. He's got a YouTube channel. Creation Worldview Ministries is the name of the channel. Make sure you subscribe there as well. And Dr. Grady, before we move on to the next question, a question for Paul. Paul, just curious, do you guys have a line that people can call in for the Q&A on? Yes, we do. If you wanna call into the show, guys, you can call in at 480-519-4999. That's 480-519-4999. I'll put that on the screen right now. Very good. And then what we're gonna go ahead and do is I'm gonna ask Dr. McMurtry maybe one or two more questions. And then what we'll do is we'll go ahead and move to the Q&A. And so let's keep the questions as on topic as possible, folks. Let's shade away from flat earth stuff or eschatology. Let's stay on topic of what's actually scientific. If there are any flat earthers that call in, I don't think Dr. Grady has a problem answering your questions, but we really wanna keep things in the scientific realm as much as possible and out of the fantasy realm. So no offense to you flat earthers out there, although that may be pretty offensive. Another question that I have for you, Dr. Grady, is this. I have been in a lot of different discussions with atheists and even on the street. And one of the most common themes that they will push to try to prove their evolutionary theory is this idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Now, as a young earth creationist and as a scientist, how would you disprove the claim that birds are nothing more than evolved dinosaurs? Well, of course, as I was being taught evolution back 60 years ago, that was a common theme that dinosaurs had evolved into birds. The dinosaurs have become extinct. And the birds were merely the dinosaurs that were with us today. But they've changed that story. Evolutionists are constantly changing their story because every time we find something that refutes evolution, that road bump and the speed of life for them, they have to come up with a new fairy tale for adults to kind of correct it. And so things like the Jurassic Park movies came along to try to convince people that evolution was true as pure propaganda. And it's interesting that in the literature over the last 40 years, they've gone from saying that dinosaurs evolved into birds to simply stating that birds are dinosaurs, period. I mean, today, they are saying that they are simply dinosaurs. And they are saying that the supposed asteroid event that killed off the dinosaurs, which is not true, and it's been disproven, but the dinosaurs were killed by that. And the birds, the flying dinosaurs, were the only ones that survived the event. Now, isn't that selective, that some natural event that could wipe out all terrestrial dinosaurs except one specific kind, which they call birds? I think that's kind of intriguing. Now, there's no possibility. Even authorities in evolution and authorities in birds will admit that dinosaurs didn't evolve into birds. They'll say, oh, I believe birds evolved, but they can prove to themselves that they didn't come from dinosaurs. There are many reasons for this. Now, of course, one of the chief characteristics of reptiles is teeth, claws, birds have claws, and they have scaly skins on their legs, feet. And people want to say, well, that's because they came from dinosaurs. Today, we have seven species of birds that at some time during their life cycle have teeth, claws, or both. For example, the ostrich has claws on its wings. Of course, there are some extinct birds as well. Archiraptor is one of them. But that's not unique. There are birds today that have teeth through their whole life cycle or a part of it who have claws on their wings or during part of their life cycle. Now, it's impossible for birds to evolve from reptiles unless you believe it religiously, you believe it by faith. Number one, the skin cells that produce scales are not the same skin cells that produce feathers. They're in different parts of the epidermis. The hearts are very different. The lungs are very different. In birds, you have to have a flow-through lung because they need high, high volumes of oxygen, especially the flying ones, because that takes a tremendous amount of energy and it takes a lot of oxygen. But reptiles have in-out lungs the way you and I do. Again, the hearts are different. So their metabolisms are very different. It is simply no way that reptiles can become birds. You have to believe it by faith because it's part of your religion. Hey, so we've got a question from Ashley. Ashley, you are live with Framing the World. Go ahead and ask your question. Hi, thank you. Hi, doctor. So my question is, do you believe that there's like millions to billions of different kinds of species in the world? Because with global warming and all of that, I believe they just tell us all these animals are extinct to make us feel guilty and to get us to believe in global warming. But I'm just, because I know in the Bible too, it says there's a select few mentioned in the Bible, but I'm just curious if there's like millions and billions of species out there that you're aware of. Well, Ashley, I appreciate you calling in. Now, number one, there is no truth whatsoever to global warming. At this time, the earth is cooling slightly. We are in the bottom of a solar minimum at this time. And it is the third decreasing solar minimum that we have had in the last 40 years. Now, the earth has been significantly warm in the past prior to the industrial revolution. It was much warmer during the medieval warm period. It was much warmer during the Roman warm period, much warmer during the Mycen warm period than it is today. And of course that had nothing to do with human activity or the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. It is not a dangerous gas. We could release all the carbon dioxide we've stored up right now and the entire earth would benefit from it. In fact, it's actually better if the earth warms up because you would have more arable land, more food production for growing human population. But at the moment, the earth is actually cooling. Now, the earth cools predominantly through two things. Number one, sunspot activity, which is at a great low at the moment and because of volcanic activity. All volcanic activity cools the earth to some degree, little or a lot. And the sunspot activity. Those are the two driving factors. Now, as far as the number of species or kinds on the earth, number one, you have to remember that, well, I say number one, God's method of categorizing creatures is different than ours. To him, bears are all bears. Humans are all humans. There's only one human race. There's no such thing as different human races. Every human being on earth is exactly the same color, except for albinos because they lack melanin pigment. But if you've got melanin, the only question is how much of it do you have? So every human being except albinos is the same color. So we all came from one pair of human beings. At creation, we all came from three pairs of human beings reproducing after the flood of Noah to get all the diversity that we see today. You only need one pair of bears on the ark to get all the different kinds of bears we have today. Now, in terms of the numbers of species alive today, it is certainly in the millions. In fact, we've already categorized over a million different species of insects. We don't know the exact number. Every year, we are finding new kinds we didn't know about before. For instance, a lot of the research off the coast of Antarctica, we're finding about 100 new species a year down there. So we don't know. It's not billions, but it's certainly millions. And of course, over time, what has happened is that some of them have become extinct. Now, actually, I'd like you to think this one through with me. The fact that we have extinction is a proof for creation. Did you hear that? You see, if evolution was true, we would be getting more and more new kinds and we wouldn't worry about kinds becoming extinct because we would consider that a part of the evolutionary process. But if creation is true, then the creator, God, started with a certain number of creatures, whatever that number is, one million, two million, three million different kinds. And you have only two choices after that. You can either continue with the same number or if any of them become extinct, you will have less and less numbers over time. So extinction is actually a proof for creation. And that's what we see right now is that the number of life forms is being reduced. Now, it's not because of global warming, because global warming is not true to begin with. However, there is loss of habitat by human populations expanding into areas that they have not existed before because of overhunting, overfishing, et cetera. That's a human action that is wrong, but that's the case. I'd just like you to think through that and say, well, thank you for calling in. All righty, we've got another caller here. We've got Matt in Detroit. Matt, you are live. Sorry, it's Mark, actually, but thank you. Doctor, I was just wondering, you were talking about the genetic entropy and such, and I was wondering, it's just a curiosity question. If Christ did not exist, if we actually were living on an evolutionary timeline, how many more viable generations do you feel man could produce before we really started going downhill as a species? Well, first of all, Mark, thank you for calling. I just want to point out to you, by the way, I was just on the program on WAMUZ with Bob Duco, so out of Detroit, you can listen to that, and I'm on there every six weeks with him. As far as the length of time that we have left, assuming that, again, Christ wasn't coming back and so forth. Now, science tells us that creation is true. Creation occurred, we are told, 6,000 years ago, and all the evidence that we have is consistent with that. What that means is that you and I are approximately the 250th generation since creation. I mentioned earlier in the program that we are losing genetic information every generation. We're losing one to 2% right now. And as we get on in time, we will lose more and more as a percentage each generation as well. And what's going to happen is, and you can't predict this, but as the loss of genetic information continues, eventually what happens is that human beings will become sterile, unable to reproduce, and we will become extinct. Now, the Bible tells us that's not going to happen. But I would point out that there's scientific proof of this. Now, of course, I want to be careful what I say on the air not to offend people's little ears if there are little ears listening. However, we do know that sperm counts in human males and in the males of other animals are going down, that we are losing our reproductive ability that is perfectly consistent with genetic entropy. It's perfectly consistent with what I was talking about. We are becoming less and less fertile over time. This is one of the reasons that more and more people are struggling with having babies. Not the only reason, but it's one of them. And so we can't predict exactly how much longer we will last. However, we can say that the human population couldn't live a whole lot longer under those circumstances. And it, again, is a scientific proof that the Lord is coming back soon. So thanks for calling, Mark. All right, awesome. And then we have a question actually from the chat room. Wendy asks, she says, can you tell us what vestigial organs are and why evolutionists claim that we do not need them? And this is a totally false argument that goes all the way back to the time of Charles Darwin and others. I want to introduce you to two terms. There's the vestigial organs and there's the retrogressive organs or structures. Now vestigial comes from the word vestige, meaning remnant. And the regressive, of course, kind of gives itself away. But what's happening is this. Over time, things again are getting worse, correct? Now, evolutionists looked at where we are over the last 100, 150 years. And Charles Darwin believed that vestigial organs or structures, retrogressive organs or structures in the human body was proof of human evolution. Now, the concept went like this. Darwin believes that people came from monkeys and we'll say apes for his sake, and that if a structure or an organ existed in the human body that was no longer needed, had no function or was having less and less function over time, that's the regressive part, that apes still had them. It was proof that humans had evolved beyond apes. We no longer needed the structures or organs that we had when we were apes, that we were therefore getting rid of those in our evolutionary process, and we were evolving new structures or organs that would allow us to become superhuman. I mean, that's the basic concept of it. Now, there's Dr. Wietersheim, a German evolutionist back in the 1890s who wrote a book on the evolution of man. And in there, he had 186 structures or organs in the human body that were vestigial, no longer needed or retrogressive on the way out. And these included things such as little toes, the appendix, your thyroid gland, your thymus gland, your pineal gland, your pituitary gland, wisdom teeth. And this evolutionist, an anatomist, said that these were structures that were no longer needed and they were evolving away or they were no longer needed. Now, since the time that Dr. Wietersheim wrote his book, modern research has proven that there is one or more functions for every single thing he listed. Out of the 186, every single one of them has one or more functions in the body. There are no such things as vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in the human body. It's a totally foolish argument. Now, if you do not believe that that is true, I will give you a special today. This is a special for you. If you don't believe you need little toes, I will amputate them for you for free. How would you like that deal? What you'd find out is that you would have to learn to walk all over again, just like a baby. Now, if you take out the pituitary gland, you're going to die, or the thyroid gland, but unless you supplement the body to replace those organs being missed. And so the truth of the matter is vestigial, retrogressive organs or structures do not exist in humans or in any other structured creature that we know of. Hey, we've got Jonathan. Jonathan, go ahead and ask your question to Dr. Grady. All right, hey, Dr. McMurtry. I've interviewed you a couple of times on my show. I just want to ask you about specifically entropy and decay, right? So, you know, obviously John Sanford has calculated that if humans were to have been around for some one to two million years, they would have already gone extinct due to genetic decay. Now, my question is, do you believe that there was decay prior, do you believe that there was entropy or decay prior to the fall, such as combustion in the sun and other stars, because that's sort of how, you know, they don't burn, they actually combust, I believe helium atoms, right? So I just want to know what your take is on that. You're confusing a couple of things. The research showed that we could not be 100,000 years old or we would already have become extinct. Secondly, the sun does have a small nuclear reactor in the center, but most of the heat and light that comes from the sun is from gravitational contraction. That's simply physics. And so I'm just trying to correct a few of those things for you. So the research showed that we couldn't be here even 100,000 years without having become extinct in terms of the loss of genetic information. Great answer. We actually had another question come up in the chat. The question was from an anonymous person. It says, serious question, Dr. Grady, do you think that the Loch Ness Monster is a myth or do you think it's possible that dinosaurs could exist in different unknown places in our world? Well, let's go backwards. First of all, we know of no live dinosaur on the earth today, in spite of all the speculation of people who say, well, you know, there's the part in the Congo that's so dense you can't get through. And there could be live dinosaurs there. The fact of the matter is science cannot deal with speculation. If there's an eyewitness account, then we can say that there are. But until we find them, they don't exist. There's no reason to believe that there's a live dinosaur on earth today. But I certainly believe that dinosaurs existed without a shadow of a doubt and were created 6,000 years ago. Now, my last name is Mac Murtrie. I mentioned that I am a Native American Indian, but obviously I have a Scottish ancestry as well. And so when it comes to Loch Ness Monster as a Scottish person, I would be very proud of Loch Ness, but no such creature exists today. However, there have been over 10,000 eyewitness accounts of the Loch Ness Monster's existence. Now, most of those are absolutely fictitious. Most of them are just too much scotch. However, remember the Loch Ness Monster was a marine creature, an aquatic creature. And we know from geologic studies done in that area of Scotland, that I've been in that area of Scotland. We know that that area of Scotland has, in fact, geologically raised up over the last few hundred years. Now, Loch Ness at one time, and the word loch is a Gaelic word for lake, but we know at one time it was not a lake. We know at one time it was a fjord that was connected to the ocean. Now, the Loch Ness Monster is nothing more than what the Bible would call Leviathan or some kind of large marine reptile that was going in and out of the fjord at a time when people were living there a thousand years ago, 2,000 years ago, 3,000 years ago, and remembered seeing these creatures. Now, because of this area being geologically active recently and raising up, the fjord was cut off to the sea and became a lake. Now, the creatures either were trapped and died out or they escaped to the sea before being trapped, but there's no such creature there today, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one in recent times. I would point out to you that in North America, and you may not have heard about Champy, but there is a similar story of such a creature living in Lake Champlain, but we also know that at one time, Lake Champlain was a fjord. And so again, North American Indians, having seen a plesiosaur or some other marine reptile going in and out of the fjord, comes up with the legend of Champy. And we have legends like that in other parts of the world so Loch Ness is not the only legend of such a creature. And remember that myth always starts in reality and that we can plausibly explain why these marine reptiles were seen, were witnessed, became mythological over time, and no longer exist. Okay, we've got another question from the chat. Yuck321 asks, could dinosaurs possibly still exist in the bottom of the ocean like the Mariana Trench or deep in the jungles like the Amazon rainforests? Well, let's make a distinction. Dinosaurs are reptiles, but not all reptiles are dinosaurs, but all reptiles, whether they are dinosaurs or not, are air breathing. So first of all, they can't be at the bottom of the ocean living. They would simply, of course, die from asphyxiation. They breathe air the same way that whales, porcupine, dolphin do, and so that's not possible. Again, I stipulate that not all reptiles are dinosaurs. There are some very specific characteristics that define them. In mathematics, it's called set theory, but dinosaurs are a small component of the total reptile world, and true, true dinosaurs walk on land. Now, there were reptilian creatures that fly, pterosaurs, pterodactyls, and there were reptiles that swim in the water, but these are not technically dinosaurs. They are reptiles, and evolutionists talk about them coming from the same time frame in their religion as dinosaurs, and so you tend to think they're dinosaurs, but the truth is they're not. They just live at the same time. So let's make some distinctions about that, okay? All right, we got another question from Standing for Truth. They're a Young Earth creationist YouTube channel, and they said they're a fan of your work, and they say, evolutionists say that we have leftover remnants of ancient viral infections known as ERVs or endogenous retroviruses that demonstrates evolution, and obviously, I've heard this argument too. It's one of their latest arguments that evolutionists have come up with, and what's the best way to refute this argument? Well, first of all, they come up with these, again, fairy tales for adults. They look at things and say, well, this here, this here, if we believe the right thing could allow us to then believe that evolution is true. Now, rather than just attack it directly, let's think about this for a second. Viruses are generally benevolent. You know, at this time, we're on the show, and we're worried about the COVID-19 virus. Most people think about viruses as being bad, and they think about influenza viruses, that's bad, and we take our immunity shots every fall. The fact of the matter is that God created viruses, and they were good. They were very good, and the vast majority of viruses are beneficial. They are not in any way harmful. As a matter of fact, they are a control mechanism created by God. If you were to go down to the ocean, and you took out a quart of water, the year would be approximately 10 million viruses in just a teaspoon. You see, viruses in seawater control bacteria so that they don't get into overpopulation and cause red tides, which would then kill fish. And so the viruses in the saltwater and other places are a control mechanism. In science, we call it a feedback loop. Same thing with engineers. And so it's a control mechanism to make sure that the bacterial populations don't get out of control so that other organisms that do require the bacteria to live but die if they're overpopulating so that those creatures will live. So bacteria are, for the most part, beneficial. Now, I'm a pretty good-sized guy. I can tell you Matt, who's on the program tonight, he's a pretty good-sized guy. He and I have about 85 trillion human cells in our bodies. That'd be about right for guys of our size. But the truth is, you have more bacteria and more viruses in your body, which are totally beneficial, are not harmful at all, than the number of human cells in your body right now. They help us in digestion. And let's talk about the retroviruses and the kinds of things that evolution is trying to say, oh, well, this proves evolution. In modern medicine, we are using retroviruses to take information and deliver it to cells. We're taking medications. We are taking corrective DNA snippets. And we're going into patients. And we were actually using the viruses to cut out bad segments of DNA. They carry with them a good segment that they then paste in place. And this can actually cure certain genetic diseases. And so viruses have lots of very beneficial purposes. And in using them to put good information back in the cell it proves that it doesn't support evolution at all. All right, we've got a question from Justin on the topic of viruses. Justin, go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my question. Not quite. It was earlier stated that viruses are beneficial to mankind in general. And I cannot for the life of me get around that statement. Like, can you explain how a virus has ever been beneficial to mankind? I just explained, if you might have been listening a little closer, that viruses are good in most cases. Now, of course, there are mutations, a loss of information, a corruption of information in previously existing material that can cause a specific virus or a specific bacteria to cause disease. However, this is a very small percentage of the total number. And viruses I mentioned earlier were beneficial, such as keeping bacteria in check to keep sea life alive is just a simple example of how viruses can be beneficial. Now, again, bacteria in your body, which can be beneficial and, for instance, necessary for digestion, could overpopulate if you didn't have viruses to keep them in check as well. So there's lots of ways in which viruses can be beneficial. And we are using them in what is basically the nanotechnology level of medicine to now deliver medicines and to deliver corrective DNA snippets. So certainly, this proves that there are beneficial uses for them, not only in nature, but also when humans manipulate them. All right. Great answer. We actually have another question from Rah Matt. And his question was, ask him what his two top best evidences are for young Earth creation regarding biology, Noah's Flood, and overall that the Earth is young. So it's kind of a freestyle question. I must say, that is a pretty broad brushstroke. Earlier in the program, I talked about the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. I personally consider that the top argument out of over 350 of the scientific arguments for a young Earth. And we just mentioned genetic entropy. Now, this is just pure science. We're not talking about what the Bible claims. We are simply looking at true demonstrable science. And so frankly, the top two arguments that I would use would be the laws of thermodynamics, the first, second, third law of thermodynamics. And I would use the decay of the Earth's magnetic field if I had to just pick two. Three, I'd throw in genetic entropy. And the list would continue on down. But these are basically irrefutable arguments by evolutionists. They can come up with all the fairy tales for adults they want to, but they cannot adequately respond to these points. All right, do we have any callers online by chance, guys? No, we don't have any callers right now, but I'll ask the question we were talking about earlier before we started the show. So I had a customer one time try to stump me and prove the Bible false by asking, if God created the sun and the stars on the fourth day, how long was the first three days? How long were the first three days? There are many very good answers to that question. So I'm going to have to give you kind of a little list, OK? First of all, we do not need the sun to describe what a day is. A day is one rotation of the Earth. So from one spot on the equator back around to the same spot is one day. If I were to put you in a coal mine a mile down, close the door, and turn off the lights, you would be in total and complete darkness. But I left you there for one complete rotation. You would have experienced a day whether you had seen the sun or not. Again, God calls it a day. Now, if God calls it a day, it's a day, because He's the one who knows. He is the authority. There's no human authority. God is the only authority. And He defines each day as one period of darkness, one period of light, and one rotation. In addition to that, in the Hebrew language, He uses what are called natural numbers with the term yom, which is the natural word for day in Hebrew, yom. And when you use these numbers, such as this is day one, day two, day three, it would be a literal counting. Remember that in the New Testament, Jesus Christ said that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning. He did not say that they came along millions of years later. Is that correct? And they were created on day six. Now, the single day that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning, now, the single greatest section in the Bible to prove that these are literal 24-hour days is if you go to the book of Exodus. In the book of the Exodus, in the middle of the giving of the 10 commandments, in Exodus 20, verses eight to 11, God stops in the middle of the giving of the 10 commandments. This is so important to Him, that He says, you shall work six literal days and rest one, because I worked six literal days and rested one. Therefore, God equates these days to exactly the same days that we experience today. So there are many different arguments we can use from the Hebrew and from the Greek and the testimony of Jesus Himself, that the first three days were one rotation of the earth exactly the same as the last three days of the week of creation. And I say that because there were six days of creation and one day of rest, a week of seven days. All righty, thank you. We've got another question from Ron. Here we go. Oh, hi, doctor. Thank you so much for taking your time and for your ministry. I just had a question for you about the various logical arguments against evolution. One of them that was always my favorite was reducible complexity. I first heard about it from an author named Michael Bahey, where he talked about irreducible complexity. I was wondering if you ever heard of that or what you thought about that. Oh, of course I've heard about it. There are terms that are used such as irreducible complexity, specified complexity. There are different terms that use that, all talking about God as the creator, the argument design, which Paul used in Romans 1, for instance, is of a very similar nature. But what we see is that biological organisms are simply too complex. There are too many interacting parts that must be perfect or they don't work. I mentioned, I believe, photosynthesis earlier perhaps, but everybody's familiar with it. Photosynthesis is basically what keeps 98, 99% of all life on earth alive. And yet if you remove one step in it, it doesn't work. Therefore it had to come into existence full and complete, which means it had to be created. The same thing is true of any other process, whether it is a natural process or a made process. Again, engineers work sometimes for years to perfect a process, but it's only valuable once it has become perfected. It is useless when it's only halfway to where it needs to be. So irreducible complexity, specified complexity, these are all terms that prove that evolution is not true. Now, I would caution you though, Dr. Michael Behe is not a young earth creationist like I am, but he has excellent biological arguments to prove that evolution is impossible. Awesome. And we actually had another question. Actually, this was not a question, but I did want to read it because this comment had stuck out to me from a lady named Sarah. She says, both my school-aged kids are convinced that evolution is true and I just cannot convince them otherwise. Now, Dr. Grady, how would you handle a situation like that where you have a young child that's being indoctrinated really by our public school system? How would you get them to rethink that position on evolution? Well, the fact of the matter is I cry at night thinking about the indoctrination of children in our public schools and getting them to believe in evolution because I was once there myself. Now, you have to remember that you have to be willing to learn or you'll never be willing to change. The same thing is true of me. I was an evolutionist, but because I was willing to learn I was willing to change. So the first thing is you can't change somebody unless they're willing to learn. That's your first step. Secondly, in the education process, good education. Now, I am a teacher. I was born teaching. My mother tells me I was born teaching and I figured she ought to know she was there at the time. Good educational technique is to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking can only be taught when you teach both sides of an issue in which faith is involved and then allow the student to decide for themselves which side they will accept and believe in. To teach evolution only in the public schools is ideological bigotry. And that's what's occurring in our schools. We are not teaching critical thinking anymore. We are teaching by memorization. Now, back when I was an evolutionist, I'm very good at memorization and I got a lot of A's and four degrees to prove it. But the fact of the matter is that I would still be an evolutionist except for the fact that I was willing to learn and therefore willing to change. So you've got to challenge them with the concepts of critical thinking because otherwise you'll never reach them. You've got to get them to agree that if they have new information that will change their minds that they would be willing to then change their minds. But if they're not willing to change, it doesn't matter what you show them. They won't change. Now, I am sorry that you didn't mention how old your children are because I could be a little more helpful if I knew. However, I would say that if you go to our website at creationworldview.org, we have a ton of free articles. We have a lot of free video materials, small snippets, things that only take a few minutes to watch that are for free. We also have a bookstore. Now, in the bookstore, there are books, there are DVDs, and there are audio only products and that you can actually go there. And let's say you want to get books. If you go to the books, you will find that there's age levels. Do you want books for young children? Do you want books that are for middle school to adult or for high school to adult? And it will actually show you the materials that are graded for the ages that you might be interested in. And they're available for e-download or in hard copy, the books or the DVDs or the audio materials. They're all either hard copy mailed or they're available on electronic download. But they are graded so that you can look for the right age group that you're dealing with. You know, you don't want something that's too young or too old for the ages you're dealing with. And there are books there that are general or they're specific, same thing with the DVDs. You need to decide whether you want general or specific. You need to decide what age group you're looking for. And you must determine what way they learn best. Are they best with books? Are they better visual learners? And so you use those things to then hone down on the materials that would help you. But on our website there's a lot of material, much of it free, that could in fact help you with them. But you must get them to understand the concepts of teaching critical thinking. And they must agree that if they get information that contradicts what they've been taught that they're willing to at least listen and if convinced, change. All right, we actually have another question. This is a more advanced question. This is from actually Guzman, 1611. The question is, which theory is a better theory? Obviously creationists typically hold a one or two. The rapid plate tectonics or the hydro plate theory and why, which one do you accept? Creation scientists are Christians but we are not monolithic in our science. Now we all agree on a young earth if we are biblical scientific creationists. But there are some things that are historical by nature and we don't have a perfect eyewitness account in the Bible of them, therefore we can speculate that this or that might have occurred in such and such a way. There's differences of opinion about how light could travel across the universe in only 6,000 years but there are viable scientific ways in which it could happen. We may also have different opinions on how the movement of the continents occurred at the time of the flood. The Bible is very specific that in fact when God created the earth, on day three he created Pangaea. It says that the land rose up out of the water and created the dry land and God separated the waters from the dry land and he called the water seas. But that the dry land basically all existed in one place, what we call Pangaea. Now there were some islands, there's scientific proof that there were some islands but most of the land mass fit together and at the time of the completion of day three the land covered roughly 40% of the earth's surface and the water covered 60%. Today it's a 30-70 ratio. Why? Well because the water went four places and one of the places the water went is it didn't go anywhere, it stayed. The continental shelves remained covered except during the ice age. Now with that in mind, the differences of opinion of how the continents moved, there are differences of opinion. Now in my personal opinion, I would favor something closer to the hydroplate concept than subduction but that's just a personal opinion and it's something that creation scientists debate. Again we're not totally monolithic except that we do believe in the authority of the scripture. Amen, somebody had a question about, actually this was actually one of my questions, it was about short period comets. What are short period comets Dr. Grady and why are they important to young earth position? Well there are many astronomical arguments for a young earth young universe and comets is one of them. Now there are two basic kinds of comets, there's the short period and the long period. Short period means that comets which have very, very long elliptical orbits. They don't go around the sun in a more or less circle the way planets do, they go way out sometimes well past Pluto and then come back in very close to the sun. Now comets are basically big, dirty ice balls and they get very close to the sun, much closer than even Venus which is extremely hot and so they melt over time and every time they go past the sun in their very long orbits, they're losing three to 5% of their mass. Well it doesn't take any great mathematical wizard to figure out that they don't last very long. Now short period comets are comets that have an orbit of less than 200 years. Now there are a few long period comets that have some pretty unique orbits. Sometimes they are not in the planetary plane, most comets are. However, there are some long period comets but the important point is that short period comets could not exist for more than 10,000 years. Long period comets could last up to 100,000 years but they are destroyed by the sun, they are destroyed by falling into certain planets. A few years ago you could actually watch a comet break up into several chunks and then disappear into Jupiter. So the gravity of the gas giants often sucks the comets into them or distorts their orbit. But the reason that we see the tails around comets and behind them is this is particles of rock and water that has evaporated, refrozen in space, causing light to then shine off the water and perhaps some minerals. And we see the tail of comets and they get longer and longer visually speaking as they get closer to the sun because they're melting at a faster and faster rate the closer they get. And when they go way out in the solar system it's so cold that they don't lose mass or don't lose it appreciably. But this is an argument that the solar system is young. When we take a look at the records kept by the early astronomers. Now there were some very good astronomers in China, in India, in Egypt, in South America and in Europe comets were very important. They were called hairy stars, they were considered messengers from the gods. Some of you may remember the comet associated with the 1066 landing of the Normans and the defeated Hastings where the Normans took over England or Britain. And these were very important. Therefore they were counted. They were observed. They were even described, even drawn as some of them looking different than others. Now let's think. They are decaying fast. When we take a look at the ancient records and even allowing that there might have been some double, even tripling of counts, you know, counting the same one, well, more than once when they shouldn't have or otherwise. They were listing thousands of comets that occurred. Today we only see hundreds. And that proves that they're wearing out, they're wearing out kind of fast, especially the short period ones, the ones with less than 200 year orbit. Now evolutionists do know that. And what happened? An evolutionary Danish astronomer named Jan Oort, Dr. Jan Oort, came up with a theory and said, well, there must be a cloud of pre-comets out beyond the orbit of Pluto, out in that very cold area where occasionally the gravity of the sun pulls them into orbit around the sun to replace those that are being destroyed. Now it's a theory. It has never been proven. The Oort cloud has never been seen because it doesn't exist. Think with me for a moment. We can take extremely good pictures in close outer space with the Hubble. The Hubble astronomy platform is a tremendous scientific piece of equipment and everything it sees disproves evolution. Now, if the Oort cloud, millions of pre-comets actually existed, don't you think that when we try to take pictures through it, some of the pictures will be a little grainy? But they're not because the Oort cloud is simply a theory. It doesn't exist. Now this is information to prove that the solar system is young, consistent with the creation 6,000 years ago. I would add, if I may, there is some scientific evidence to suggest that the comets are actually water and rock ejected from the Earth at the time of the flood, that water and rock actually got to escape velocity, shot out into outer space. And think about the craters on the moon for just a moment. There are more craters on this side of the moon than the other side of the moon. Now, that would be perfectly consistent with material being shot out of the Earth at the time of the flood, water and rock turning into ice. Some of it actually hitting the moon causing craters, some of it just barely missing the moon, and the gravity of the moon pulling it back into the backside and hitting it on the backside. Now the fact of the matter is, most of the craters on the moon are not initial impacts. Most of the craters on the moon, we now know, are secondary and tertiary impacts from the actual ejecta of the first impact. So one impact occurred, threw material up, the gravity of the moon is very weak. But then it pulled it back down, making secondary craters, which threw material up, that fell back down, forming tertiary craters. And so the moon is not a series of initial impacts, it's a series of some initial impacts and the secondary tertiary impacts as well. And therefore the moon is not nearly as old as evolution has claimed. All right, thank you. Doctor, we've got another question from Steve. Steve, you are live. Yes, Doctor McMurtry, how you doing tonight? Good sir, thank you. Yes, I wanted to tell you we love your ministry, glad you're doing what you're doing. Thank you. I wanted to ask you what, in your opinion, was the best evidence for Noah's Flood. Oh, the best evidence for Noah's Flood. There's so much of it. Number one, of course, would be that we only have basically 4,500 years worth of mud at the mouth of all the world's great rivers. When you take a look at the Mississippi, evolutionists say the Earth is four and a half plus billion years old, they say the Mississippi is two million years old. Now, the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old, there was a worldwide flood 4,350 years ago, give or take a little. I'll call it 4,500 years ago simply because it's easier to say, okay? Now, think with me for just a moment. We can measure the amount of mud going down a river. We can measure the amount of mud at the mouth of a river. It's simple. And there's only 4,500 years worth of mud at the mouth of the Mississippi. Now, this proves that there was a worldwide flood in which all the sedimentary rock layers that we see today were laid down. And remember that most of the land surface, dry land surface of the Earth today is sedimentary rock with some exceptions, of course. And this speaks of a worldwide flood just to start with. Polystrate fossils, the existence of fossils in these layers, the existence of marine organisms with terrestrial organisms in the layers together is proof of a flood. But the timing of it, things like the amount of mud at the mouth of the Mississippi. And it's also true of the Amazon, the Congo, Indus, Ganges, same with St. Lawrence, Seine, Rhine, Volga. If you take a look at the maps that we show on a DVD we have called The Waters Cleaved, we show the ocean floor without water. You can see the evidence for Noah's flood for yourself and you don't need me to convince you, it is obviously there. You see, that amount of erosion proves that the Earth was flooded, the layers were laid down. And then they started to erode when the flood waters went away. Now, being mud layers, they would erode quickly at first. But as the mud solidified, lithified into rock, then it's going to erode slower. So while the flood was really about 4,350 years ago, the 4,500 years worth of mud is then factored in by rapid erosion initially slowing down later. The Gulf of Mexico is a big empty hole in the ground. If the Mississippi were two million years old, then the Gulf of Mexico would be filled in. I'm a full-time missionary. I go to Russia two, three times a year. There's also a hole in the middle of the Caspian Sea. Now, the Caspian Sea is like the Dead Sea in Israel. It has no outlet. So Lake Chad in North Central Africa. The seas, they're landlocked in Southern Russia, which is now Kazakhstan. And the end of the Volga going into the Caspian Sea is a Dead Sea. It has no outlet, yet it still has a hole in the bottom of it that's not been filled in yet. We start to see how this proves that all of these things occurred only a few thousand years ago. All right, guys. Thank you so much for tuning in to tonight's program. I just wanted to quickly remind everyone, if you're just tuning in now, that we are talking with Dr. Grady McMurtry. I really appreciate him coming on the show today. You can check him out on his website, creationworldview.org. His ministry is called Creation Worldview Ministries. And today's live stream is brought to you by Our House. So I hope you guys go over to Our House and support her over there. She has a great YouTube channel. Make sure you subscribe to that page over there, Our House. Karen Rodriguez is an awesome woman. I really appreciate her helping out on this show and doing the thumbnails and working real hard for us. So again, guys, thank you so much for tuning into this live stream. Make sure you share it. We're gonna still go on here for a little bit. We're taking calls. You can call in at 480-519-4999. And if you purchase anything from the store during this live stream, you'll get 15% off your order. All you have to do is type in FTWLIVE at checkout. So I'm gonna hand it off to Alex, and he's gonna ask you a question. All right, we've got a question from Tommy, no doubt. He asked earlier in the live feed, how do you deal with scientists who claim to date fossils by using carbon dating? Carbon dating is the single worst of the radiometric dating processes. It simply doesn't work, period. But none of the radiometric dating processes work, whether it's potassium, argon, rubidium, strontium, carbon-14, none of them work. All of them start with fatal false assumptions. But carbon-14 is the worst. Carbon-14 has 20 scientifically fatal false assumptions. But think about the false assumptions that invalidate any of them. First of all, we can only measure the end results that we have today. So we take a mass spectrometer, we can measure the isotopes that exist as a percentage in a sample today. But we do not know the starting parameters. If you don't know the starting parameters, but only the ending ones, then you cannot possibly get a date unless you make assumptions according to your religion. You see, let's think about uranium lead for just a moment because I think it's the easiest one for most people. We'll get back to carbon-14. But uranium turns into lead. Now, what many people don't realize is that there are 13 intermediate radioactive steps in that process. The decay chain takes a total of 15 steps from uranium to get to lead, stable lead 206. Now, all of the intermediates are also radioactive. All of them turn into lead. And once it turns into lead, you cannot tell where it came from. And therefore, when we pick up a rock and let it say that it is 50% lead and 50% uranium, assuming that you have an accurate number that the half-life is four and a half billion years, you would claim that that rock was four and a half billion years old because half of the uranium had turned to lead. However, you have some very serious problems because what if only, well, what if 51% of the rock had been uranium and the others had been various radioactive materials that decay actually very quickly? Now, remember that in the decay chain, there are some radioactive elements that literally have a half-life of less than four minutes. Well, you'd be making a greatly exaggerated case for the age of the rock if you don't take into account that other radioactive materials may have been there, decayed, leaving no trace of their existence. We know that the processes of radioactive decay are not constant. They can be changed in the environment. We know, for example, that acid rain can leach lead in or out of a deposit. Uranium is a salt in nature. We know that water can leach lead in or the uranium in and out of a sample. We don't know the starting parameters. You only know the ending ones. Therefore, that invalidates all of them. Now, there's much more, but when it comes to carbon-14, it's the worst. Now, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. All scientists agree with that, basically, and that means that every 5,730 years, half of the carbon-14 that existed in the past will then disappear, correct? Now, the most sensitive instrument we have on Earth today to measure carbon-14 cannot measure carbon-14 levels beyond 17 and a half half-lives, and for the sake of those listening, that means that we cannot measure carbon-14 beyond roughly 103,000 years if there had ever been a 103,000 years. So if an evolutionist tells you that they have found, well, this particular fossil, and it's been dated as millions of years old using carbon-14, you want to laugh in their face. It's impossible to use carbon-14 to date millions of years for anything, even if there hadn't been a million years. The only thing that carbon-14 is useful for is to prove that the Earth is young. Now, just to throw a little wrinkle in here, we have found carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils. We have found carbon-14 in other things that supposedly there should be no carbon-14 in that should have completely decayed long before we could measure them. And the important thing is that we find carbon-14 in abundance, in coal, oil, and natural gas. Now, most evolutionists would say that the majority of coal was created during the Carboniferous Period, supposedly, according to them, 300 to 360 million years ago, what's called the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian period of the geological time scale. Yet we find carbon-14, impossible if it's millions of years old. Same thing is true with oil, natural gas. We still find carbon-14 off the coast of California. And I'm from California. They found oil that they said was 100 million years old, and yet it had carbon-14 in it. Impossible. It proves that these are things that are vegetative materials, deposited during the time of Noah's Flood, 4,350 years ago, and that all the carbon-14 has not yet decayed and disappeared. I would point out to you that there are other things, such as nuclear testing. The above-ground nuclear testing that was done, in the 30s, 40s, 50s, changed the carbon-14 ratios. We know that, of course, the atmosphere of the Earth was different before the flood. This would also have caused the carbon-14 ratios to be different. There's a lot of things that throw carbon-14 off. It is a totally useless method of dating anything other than to prove the Earth is young. All right, very good. We have another question from a guy named Kevin in the chat. He asks, Dr. Grady, do you believe in or teach in apparent age? Absolutely not. It is very inappropriate to talk about apparent age. You should never, ever use the argument that God created with the appearance of age, because if that were true, then God is deceptive. God's a liar, and God is not. God did not create with the appearance of age. God created with functioning maturity. By that, what I mean is that Adam and Eve were not created as babies and grown into adults. There was nobody there to care for them. They were created as juveniles at the age of puberty. Now, how do I know that? Because the Bible tells us. Human beings were created for two purposes, to have voluntary fellowship with God and to worship Him for who He is, not what He does for us, and to fill the earth, to reproduce. And so Adam and Eve were created at an age where they could care for themselves and start to reproduce immediately. So they were created as juveniles at the age of puberty. The same thing would be true of elephants, ostriches, kangaroos. They were all created with functioning maturity. That is to say, they could start reproducing and care for themselves. They didn't have to be raised or cared for. And they were ready to care for their own offspring when they came along. All right, thank you, Dr. Grady. We've got another question from Cindy in Michigan. You are live. Go ahead and ask your question. Hello, Dr. Grady. Hi, Cindy. Hi, I wanted to ask a question. Aaron Ra claims that you and Matt Powell are both dishonest and that creationism is the most dishonest position. How would you answer such a claim? Well, first of all, I don't answer ad hominem attacks. And Mr. Ra is a person who has a very vile mouth. He is a dedicated atheist and evolutionist. His arguments are fallacious. But the fact of the matter is, I don't even bother with ad hominem attacks because it simply proves that he doesn't have any arguments that are valid. I think that's a great answer. I think that Aaron, all he does is call us liars and say that we're the most dishonest people. But that's only because, you know, you have to resort to ad hominem attacks when you know that you don't have a point. And so that's exactly what he does. And so we have another question from Alfredo. The question is the underground water caves and freshwater sinkholes in the peninsula of Mexico by Belize. It is said that they took millions of years to form. How could I counteract this theory? Well, first of all, I would remind you that we also have some very similar things in Florida, the peninsula of Florida for the same reasons. So this is something I'm pretty familiar with. Now, caves are very interesting, but in this case, these are limestone caves. Limestone is a very soft mineral and water will erode it very quickly, dissolves it very quickly. Now, evolutionists will say that it takes millions of years for these caves. Now, I have a picture of Mayan Indian pottery left in a limestone cave in the Yucatan Peninsula. Now, we know that it's approximately 700 years old. It's pre-Columbian, but we can date it fairly accurately as about 700 years old. And yet on top of this man-made pottery that was left in a cave, there's a three-foot-long stalagmite. Now, when we go into limestone caves around the world, I've got a great question for you to ask those who say it takes millions of years. I've been in a lot of limestone caves. You can see pictures of limestone caves all over the world. I have a hour-long presentation on pictures taken in limestone caves of stalactites, stalagmites. And you know that in some cases, stalactites and stalagmites actually touch each other and form what is called a column. Now, the earth is constantly moving. Earthquakes shake the earth. The earth is constantly moving. Now, it may not be much. It might only be a centimeter. However, please tell me if you have ever seen yourself in a limestone cave, or have you ever seen a picture taken in a limestone cave where you have seen a column that has been broken? I've never seen one. That means that they are in the same position they were in when they formed. But if they were old, they would have broken because of the shifting of the movement of the ground. This proves they are young. And we know from experiments and eyewitness accounts that in fact, these things can form very rapidly. For example, in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., there are stalactites. The Jefferson Memorial, not in Washington, D.C., but the memorial to Lewis and Clark where Jefferson sent them to the northwest above the bluffs of the Mississippi River has a column from the top of the monument to the bottom inside the basement proving that this is a rapid formation. I am willing to bet you right now, regardless of where you're living as you listen to this, and I know we have some listeners from Michigan, so obviously it's not just a local program, if you will simply go out and find any cement bridge that has been in existence for more than 10 years, I would be willing to tell you that you will find stalactites because as the water goes through the cement, picks up the lime, it redeposits it as the water drips off the bottom. So you go underneath the bridge and you'll start finding stalactites. I don't have to prove that it doesn't take millions of years, would you agree? All right, the next question we have is from Guzman1611, his question is really short and to the point, it's how do you date a rock? Well, that's actually the name of one of my presentations and since I know who he is and I have been with him, he already knows that. But the fact of the matter is there's absolutely nothing about a rock that will tell you how old it is. There's nothing about the size, feel, shape, smell, taste, weight, specific gravity, chemical composition. There's nothing about a rock that will tell you how old it is. You see, evolutionists deceive people into believing that things are, this is a million, this is 100 million, this is 500 million years old, simply on the authority of their own opinion. They simply make it up. They grab these numbers out of the air. They use numbers that are consistent with their religion. But they have absolutely no scientific proof that in fact rocks are old. After all, think with me, I can pick up any rock claiming age for it I want to. You can disagree with me, but you cannot scientifically prove that I'm wrong. And that's what evolutionists do. The same thing with fossils. After all, I used to be an evolutionist. When I was an evolutionist, I picked up a fossil bone of a dinosaur and I said, aha, evolution. Today I pick up the same bone and I say, aha, creation. It's the same bone. The difference is your interpretation of it. The same thing is true of any rock. Rocks do not tell you how old they are. All right, we've got a question from Tommy. Tommy, you are live. Hey, Dr. McMurtry, thank you so much for taking out your time to answer our questions. Well, welcome, Tommy, what can I do for you? All right, so I was just wondering, do you believe in Pangaea? And if you do, how do you think everything was broken up into continents? Well, first of all, I said early in the program that God created Pangaea on day three. If you'll read the Bible carefully, on day three, God causes the dry land to rise up out of the water and he creates Pangaea. It says that the water of the seas were gathered into one place, the land was in one place. Pangaea is a biblical concept. Now, I stipulated earlier that the Earth, on the end of day three, if you'd look down from a telescope, 40% of the surface would be dry land and 60% would be water because it was shallow seas. Now, of course, today we have oceans and we have only 30% dry land and 70% water. One reason being that the water didn't go away off the continental shelves after the time of the flood, except for a brief period during the ice age. Now, the continents broke apart. It's, of course, recorded for us in Genesis, starting at Genesis chapter seven. And indeed, it says, and this is the name of the DVD that we have on this particular thing, showing how the Bible is absolutely accurate about the details of the flood, called The Waters Cleaved. When you take a look at Genesis chapter seven at verse 11, what I call the convenience store verse of the Bible, I'm sure you're familiar with 7-11, it says that the fountains of the great deep, the subterranean waters burst forth, broke open, and that's the Hebrew translated into English, but what it really says in Hebrew is the waters cleaved. Now, the word to cleave means to knife through from below. To cleave means to come to a knife edge. You're familiar with a big knife called a meat cleaver. It's called a cleaver because it comes to a knife edge. Similarly, in the marriage contract, God says the husband and wife shall cleave to each other and become one flesh, because along the edge of a knife blade, there's just one edge. There are two sides, but only one edge. And so, the waters knifed through, that God created 1,656 years before creation. These are subterranean waters. They are located 10 miles down. This is a scientific number. Remember that we have done a remote sensing of the inside of the earth, and the scientist, Mohorovic, found what's called the Moho layer. Now, there are still pockets of water down there today, water that didn't get out the first time, and that water is still coming up today through volcanic activity, black smokers in the middle of the ocean, mud volcanoes, volcanic activity. However, at the time of the flood, the crack that separates the continents starts at Caesarea Philippi in northern Israel, and I show that you can see the physical evidence to prove it. And it then goes out in the ocean through the Gulf of Aden. It then goes around the world, what is called the Midoceanic Ridge. This is where the water's knifed through from below, splitting Pangaea up into pieces. These pieces, because of the water below, were able to float away rapidly from each other, but as the water comes out, the continents also have to sink because the water is coming up from below. It can no longer support the land. The land will sink, and the water comes up, the land sinks and replaces where the land was, and the earth is flooded. Now, you can see the physical evidence for yourself of this. If you simply look at the maps that we have which is the ocean without water. So, the concept of Pangaea is biblical. It did not originate with evolutionists. They want you to think it did, but it didn't. God clearly describes it coming into existence on day three. And because of the things that he created on day one and day two, you put the natural mechanisms there, which 1,656 years later, God will then utilize to achieve his purposes of splitting the continents, having them float rapidly apart to where they are today. All right, awesome. And then the next question that we have is from William. And William asks, Dr. McMurtry, can you explain why scientists use a different, use the scientific consensus now instead of a tried and true scientific method? Let me make a slightly different way of commenting on that. Consensus science is the worst kind of science there is. This is why creation scientists are not consensus scientists. Evolutionists are. They will say, well, everybody believes in evolution, or everybody believes this or that. And today, of course, everybody believes in global warming, which is absolutely not true. I'm a very proud, very proud global warming denier. There's no such thing as consensus in the scientific realm. If you took a vote, I bet you you could not get 100% of all scientists to agree the sun would rise tomorrow. But consensus science is the worst form because what does it do? Consensus science holds back. It retards scientific activity. Consensus science says we now know, and therefore we do not have to explore further. We don't have to experiment further. It's known that this, that, or the other thing. But the fact of the matter is that science shouldn't operate that way. Science should continue to experiment, to discover, to re-theorize, you know, massage the material data and get real data and not just theories. And so science should remain experimental. It should remain operational. It shouldn't be stymied by the concepts of consensus science. But consensus science simply slows down scientific progress. After all, there was a time when scientists would all agree that rats spontaneously generated under a pile of rotting rags. Now, obviously, that was disproved in 1668 by Francesco Redi because he did an experiment to prove that, well, it might be consensus for you, but it's not true. And so we must avoid consensus science as much as possible. All right, next question is from Tim. He says evolutionists say that we did not come from Iraq and yet the textbooks say that we did. Is it true that evolution teaches that we came from Iraq? Well, remember that evolution says that there can be no active outside creator God, no intelligence outside acting on anything, that everything must be totally 100% naturalistic, mechanistic, and that evolutionists actually, well, they hamstring themselves by saying that we will not look at anything else, that we will only be existential in our observations. And they eliminate a useful part of scientific knowledge that is available to us, okay? Now, I would simply, again, kind of reiterate what I've already done in the program already concerning this. All right, awesome. And then I actually had a question for you. So, you know, a lot of people say that there's like extraterrestrial life out there. And whenever I've been in debates, if you pin them on intelligent design, they'll always go crying to aliens to solve all their problems. How do you refute that? Well, let us be very specific about what the Bible does say, what it does not say, and what science can say and cannot say. First of all, if we look at the Bible, if we go to, for instance, Psalm 115, God stipulates this is the only place where human beings exist anywhere in the universe. This is the only place where he made anything in his own image. This is the only place that Jesus Christ came and died once for all. Now, when God uses the word all, he means all. There cannot be any sentient beings capable of knowing about sin, capable of being saved anywhere else in the universe. The Bible simply says it isn't there. However, the Bible also says that God can decorate the universe for his own good pleasure. Therefore, if God wants to put planets someplace in the universe, if he wants plants and animals to exist there, that's his business. But not people, not sentient beings, not creatures that can experience sin and need salvation. Nothing made in the image of God exists anywhere except here. The Bible also says that the earth is the center of the universe. Now, people forget that words have multiple meanings. When God says the earth is at the center of the universe, it's the center of his purposes. And remember that the word center has multiple uses. Now, here in the States, we don't use the term much. However, in Europe and in Asia, the term city center is a common terminology. When you see signs, let us say leading, that this is the road that goes to, for instance, downtown Phoenix or downtown Houston, Texas, or downtown Orlando. The sign says this way to the city center. Now, there is a place, it's the geologic geographic center of a city, but it is not necessarily in the middle. And there's the financial center, there's the recreational center, there's the educational center. The word center has multiple meanings. Now, think with me just for a moment. We now know from scientific research, much of it done by evolutionists, that the galaxy that we exist in is at the center of the universe. And the study of redshift has proven that we are at the center of the universe, although the earth is not at the center of the galaxy. But we are not at the center of the galaxy for very good reasons. If we were, we would perish. God put us out on sort of the edge of a spiral galaxy tucked in on the inside of an arm, which gives us very excellent vision to see things astronomically, and yet protects us. And it allows us to be in the habitable zone of the galaxy, just as the earth is in the habitable zone of the solar system. This shows design, this shows intelligence. But redshift has proven to be not smooth, which would be a big bang concept. Redshift has proven to be quantized at specific repeating distances. It's kind of like a target, where you have a center and then concentric rings when you think about it. If you were to have a, let's say a baseball inside a volleyball, inside a basketball, and you were to cut through there, you would see the center and rings around it, like cutting through a tree trunk and seeing the rings. Well, redshift is like the rings in 360 degrees of direction in all directions. And the redshift is quantized, proving that our galaxy is at the center of the universe. And therefore, when the Bible says the earth is at the center, it really is true. It's just not the absolute center. All right, awesome. The next question is from Ash Lee. She says, ask him please if oil came from dinosaurs. Absolutely not. That is a concept that was taught in Chevron commercials, where many years ago, dinosaurs were walking on the earth, green ones and red ones and purple ones, and they got in an elevator and went down into the ground and turned into oil. Now that's a fairytale. You see, we can tell whether oil in the ground comes from vegetable materials or animal materials by certain compounds, certain chemical compounds in the oil. It turns out that the vast majority of oil in the ground, almost all of it, came from vegetative sources. Now there were billions and billions of trees on the earth prior to the flood. Remember that the earth's dry land surface was a third bigger than it is today. The environment was good everywhere for growing plants. In the oceans, we probably had floating mats of vegetative material, which would of course increase the amount of vegetation. But this was all buried in the flood of Noah. And when you bury vegetable materials in the ground, you will get coal or oil. And you may not know this, but coal and oil are basically the same thing. The difference is the amount of water. And so what happens is when the vegetative mats are laid down and covered by mud layers during the flood of Noah, there's compression and heat. When you compress, you heat. And the decay of materials causes its own heat. Now if there's a way for the water to escape the sides, well you're going to get coal. But if the water can't get out, then you're going to get oil. But they're basically the same thing. Now think with me for just a moment. In Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, we have natural layers of anthracite coal that in places are 200 foot thick and 300 foot thick. To get anthracite coal, you have to have a layer of dead plant and wood material, all in the same place, all at the same time, compressed 10 to one. So you'd have to have a layer 10 foot compressed to one foot to get anthracite. Now if you do it, say, five to one, you might get bituminous soft coals. Two or three to one, you might get lignite soft coals. But to get anthracite, you've got to go to 10 to one. Now that tells us that at one time, there were layers of dead plant and wood material, 2,000 foot thick and 3,000 foot thick, all in one place, all at one time, with enough mud on top of them to compress them down to 200 and 300 feet. This could only be done in a worldwide flood. All right, that pretty much is it for questions. If you guys have any other questions in the chat, feel free to ask them. But I think we're gonna start the wrapping up of this live show here tonight. And for those of you who are just tuning in, we are live with Dr. Grady McMurtry from Creation Worldview Ministries based over in Orlando, Florida. So I highly recommend that you check out his content and subscribe. And he's got a website with a lot of books for all different ages. He's got some for children, adults, teenagers. And so he's got video DVDs, audio CDs, and a lot of free stuff on his YouTube channel. And so I recommend that you check out his content. And Dr. McMurtry, I just wanna say thank you so much for coming out of this broadcast. Well, it's my pleasure, Matt. It's been a pleasure being with you and the whole crew. I wanna thank them as well. For sure, for sure. Were there any other thoughts that you wanted to share with the viewers tonight before we wrap this thing up? Well, I might reiterate it, sorry. The intellectual aspect is this. Christianity is the only intellectual evidence-based faith in the world. It's only rational, reasonable, logical, and evidence-based religion in the world. All the rest are based on falsities and lack evidence. And therefore, when we talk about Christ as the savior, that he is the creator, Colossians 1.16, for instance, that you really can believe what the Bible's telling us. It is supported scientifically. Now, the Bible doesn't need science to support it, but good science does support what the Bible claims. And it is therefore the only rational, reasonable, evidence-based faith in the world. And this is argued in the Bible scientifically, if you go to Romans chapter one, you go to Acts chapter 17, go to 2 Peter chapter three. We have 2,000 years ago the apostles using scientific methodology to prove the Christianity because Christianity has had to deal with evolution for thousands of years. There's nothing new about it. Philosophically, the concepts of evolution go all the way back to the Garden of Eden. And this war is not over. It is a continuing war. We must arm ourselves with materials, whether it's books, DVDs, CDs, whether it's podcasts, regardless of which. And we have to arm our children because if we don't arm our children, we are going to lose them. They are teaching evolution only in schools. It's a religion. It's not science. I would sort of end with one question. If we're not supposed to be sponsoring any particular religion according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which I totally support, but if we're not supposed to be favoring one religion over another, please tell me, why are we using taxpayer dollars to teach the religion of evolution in the public schools? If you read the first, second, third humanist manifestos, these are the religious founding tenet documents for atheism. But they require a belief in chemical evolution, requiring that rocks become alive by a random chance, requiring that you believe that living organisms start from single-celled and become multiple-celled and become humans by random chance. And yet, it's unscientific. It's a religion. All right, thank you so much for coming on Framing the World Live. Dr. Grady McMurtry, we've got one last question for you from a caller. Caller, go ahead and ask your question. So Dr. McMurtry, I'm wondering if you, you know, from where you sit, if you could change one thing about the way creationists approach the debate with evolutionists, what would that be, or what is something that you see your constituents doing that you would change that you don't agree with? I'm sorry, but it's too broad a brush. Remember that God uses each individual with the talents that they have, and then through the Holy Spirit, gives them the ability to do their jobs and their functions without changing their personality. Therefore, you cannot say that there is one thing, because the one thing would be different for each individual. What we must do is don't get out of the fight. We must be Christian soldiers who go into the fight with the tools that we have. Now, we should educate ourselves more, learn more, and therefore add to our weapons. But what we have to do is never give up, never give in. Churchill, if I may quote him, we've got to get in the battle and we've got to stay in the battle. This is a concept of the apostle Paul taught. He said in Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 11, verse three, it's the battle of the mind. If you go back at chapter two, 2 Corinthians 10, verses three, four, five, he talks about spiritual warfare is mental, that we take satanic fortresses, we control imaginations and thoughts, and we hold them captive to Christ. Anybody that does that can be successful, whether they know a lot or a little. The important thing is get in the fight and stay in the fight. All right, I think this has been a great broadcast and there's been a lot of good reviews of this broadcast. I'm just gonna read a few of them. A guy named Jim says, this is a very extensive interview and I'm very grateful. Thank you, Dr. McMurtry. Guzman1611, of course, says, Dr. McMurtry, colon, one of the best. And I think a lot of us can agree with that. And a lot of people are checking out your website and they say that they love it. And the last positive remark is from Eunice. She says, this broadcast has been a blessing. Thank you, Dr. McMurtry and thank you, Matt. And I'd just like to say as well, thank you to Paul and Alex for taking the time to put this broadcast together. Thanks so much, guys. Thank you, guys.