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

Matt, if you don't mind giving a little presentation of why evolution is absolutely wrong, why the six day creation is truth, not just from the word, but from the research that you've been going through for the past couple months. So if you don't mind collecting that together. So welcome to the broadcast, please introduce yourself to everybody. And then when you're done, give us a little presentation. When you're done, we'll go back and forth and see where the spirit leads with the conversation. No problem. Well, hello everybody. My name is Matt Powell. I'm a college student. I'm also a preacher, I enjoy preaching. And Matthias, thank you so much for having me on. So just a little bit about myself. I'm a senior in college this year, studying computer science and a business degree as well in computer information systems. And I love logic, I love science and so forth. And one of the things that I've noticed is that there's a lot of lies in our textbooks. And a lot of people accuse me of being so biased against the truth, but here's the thing. Actually, they're biased. If you're an evolutionist, you're automatically biased. And people often just accuse, just about every creationist, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, they accuse all these men of being biased. But the truth is that they're actually the biased ones. These people, that's why the Bible says that he that accused a few of these things is guilty of the same things. So literally the word of God just gets it right straight off the bat. And people are like, oh, well, there's no bias. What bias are you talking about? Well, obviously Ernest Takle, one of the most popular teachers of evolution of all time, stated, and this is his own quote. He said, spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had been proven in a laboratory, but because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a creator. So he's saying, look, spontaneous generation must be true, otherwise I'd have to believe in God. But spontaneous generation was debunked years and years ago, and yet people are still trying to resurrect it and believe it because they don't want to believe in a God. And I love what the Bible says about, God said, Jesus said while he was on this earth, he said, he who doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, they are wrought in God. But he said, he that, you know, hates God, hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved, and that means discovered. And so some people just are automatically biased. So when people accuse us of being biased, look at their own scientists. You know, Ernest Takle is a prime example. And for him to say, well, a spontaneous generation must be true, otherwise I'd have to believe in God. Well, spontaneous generation just happened to be disproved and debunked, so where is, I mean, and obviously it's a faith religion. Obviously he's accepting that by faith. And he's saying, hey, this is more plausible than God. But in all reality, and before I turn this over to back to you, Matthias, I believe that atheism itself is a religion and you have to accept it by faith. And a lot of people accuse me and accuse other people and say, well, you're special pleading God, you're special pleading. But here's the thing, matter cannot be created or destroyed. That's the first law of physics. And so if at one point all scientists agree that at one point there was no matter, there was no time, no space, no matter, no nothing, and then bang out of nothing, the big bang, everything comes into being. But that violates the first law of thermodynamics. What is that? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. So logically it's more plausible to believe, okay, something outside of the laws of physics, obviously if you have a law, you have to have a law giver. Somebody outside of the laws of physics would have had to bring the laws of physics into being and bring matter itself into being. Because natural causes can't bring about themselves. These are scientific facts that we observe. Science has to be demonstrable, testable, and provable. Otherwise it's not science. And so when these guys are saying, look, spontaneous generation must be true, or just stupid things like, okay, that one point there was nothing, which I agree. And then bang out of nothing, everything comes into being. How is that scientific that violates the very first law of physics? So right off the bat, the atheists already have a huge problem and they already have a huge gap in their theory. They have no basis. And yet they claim to be so logical. That's why I love what the Bible says. The Bible says professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. They put on the glasses a certain way and try to make themselves look wise. But the Bible refers to them as fools. Reason being is because they deny the first and second law of thermodynamics. And realistically, they deny all of science. Yeah, one quote I heard the other day about atheism is two things. Number one, there is no God. And number two, I hate him. The story that you were saying about the Hensley guy, I think, I forget his name, but that spontaneous generation must be true. We see that somebody who has searched out what he believes and has come to a point to where he has to honestly decide if he's going to believe what the world says or believe what God says. And he doesn't like the implications of what God says. And here's the thing, the reason why he probably doesn't like the implication of it could be God, it must be spontaneous generation because I don't want it to be God. It's probably because he was indoctrinated believing that Catholics are Christian, believing that all the lies about God from all the different denominations that confuse everybody, that he didn't want any part to do with that. And he probably never responded enough to God's drawing him to where he actually had somebody spend a whole bunch of time with him, explaining him, just like the Ethiopian, like, who is this? Who does this speak of? So that takes somebody really seeking God for God to send that person there. And if they're not seeking, they're never, God's not going to send it. But yeah, Matthew. Yeah, I hate to say it, but, and I agree 100% with you on that, that these poor guys, like I feel bad for some of them and I'm not going to say, hey, they're totally, it's totally not their fault because to an extent it is, but at the same time, and I agree, these other so-called holy books are so, because people say, oh, the Bible's unscientific, you can't trust the Bible, the Bible's unscientific. Well, wait a minute, let's start in Genesis 1.1, in the beginning, God, so in the beginning there's time, God created the heavens, there's space, and the earth, there's matter, Trinity of Trinity is all right there in Genesis 1.1, and that is scientific. So when somebody comes and says, oh, the Bible's unscientific, have you even read the first verse of the Bible? And not to mention, there's just all sorts of things through the Bible, the global flood, and the fact that we found these fossilized seashells up on the top of Mount Everest, and the viewer, Mount Everest is actually the tallest mountain in the world, and that's basic science, that's what we understand, and we've proven that through multiple different methods that indeed Mount Everest is the tallest mountain. So if Mount Everest is the tallest mountain that we have, and we're finding fossilized seashells up there, that is a proof that at one point the world was completely covered in water. And so when somebody comes and says that the Bible's unscientific, the flood's unscientific, how readest thou? What sources do you have? And not to mention, and back to what you were saying, Brother Matthias, I completely agree, these other holy books, they really mislead people because they are unscientific, not to mention they were written by just these guys that didn't know anything about God or about science. You know, and people accuse us, oh, your Bible was written by a bunch of goat herders. Well, what I think is so silly about that is those same goat herders were some of the greatest mathematicians of all time, and the mathematical equations that these guys came up with are still the equations that we use today for the most advanced mathematics. So when people come at me with that, it's like, have you studied history? Have you studied any sort of reliable material? And usually they're just, nope, I'm with Ernest Haeckel, I'm biased. And you know what, in their defense, a lot of times world religion can indeed really slip people up on this issue, and I agree with you 100%. World religion destroys, excuse me, any sort of faith in God. Religion is one of Satan's biggest tools. He's not scared of religion. He uses religion to make people wanna work, or to, not wanna work, but to think that works are correct. For one, it seems right to them. They haven't read the Bible enough to realize the way that seemeth right to a man is the way that leadeth to death. So most religions, the people in them are on their way to the ditch, but then those people who don't believe can, on the outside, they can look in and they see all this chaos and all of this bickering and all of this can't come together, supposedly all Christians, and they just think that it's crazy. They don't want anything to do with it. It looks like muddy water, but there's only the narrow road that really just goes right through the middle of that that people can't see. It takes a bold believer to go straight to somebody and tell them directly. And if you're talking flesh to flesh, you're still not gonna get anything done. You've gotta be walking in the spirit as a believer and talking to somebody who's humbly seeking and to be able to go bypass their flesh, talk to their soul, and Lord willing, directly to their spirit. And it's when somebody's, when God opens their ears and eyes of their spirit is when they actually can understand with their heart, which is their spirit. So most people are all just in the flesh and they've got the, well, for one, they're not born again. They have no ability to walk in the spirit, but they're looking at the lies of the devil, all the different ones, and it just confuses them. But if they would humble themselves, ask God to reveal himself to them, maybe they haven't even realized it's the Bible, but they go through conscience and creation, the two witnesses, and respond and say, I wanna know that God, the God that tells me, that shows me what's right and wrong from within myself and that I see in this creation, I wanna know that God, and he'll reveal more. But with people who are trusting in evolution, they just haven't gone to God. Sadly, they think they've learned about religion, they think they've learned about God, but they've learned of religion, which is straight from Satan and the world's religions, and know nothing of God. And yet they're still rejecting him, thinking they do know something of him, which is sad. But my main point for what I was getting into is at least that Hinckley guy is being honest in the fact that he's saying, hey, I don't have any evidence one way or the other, but I'm gonna place my faith in this because I don't want this to be true. At least he's honest. It's interesting you mentioned that because I went on a talk show, the Non-Psychonaut Show, and they're accusing us, they accuse all Christians, brother, you, me, Ken Hoy, anybody that speaks out on these issues, they come out and they just say, hey, you're so biased. And Steve McCray said, Matt, you're the most biased young man I've ever met, so close-minded. Well, here's the thing. Steve McCray even said on his own show, oh, I'm a huge fan of Ernst Haeckel. I think he's a great man. I think he's one of the greatest scientists of all time. Well, you realize that Ernest Haeckel was the most biased man, and you're accusing me of being biased? I mean, come on. And not to mention, Ernest Haeckel's textbooks are still in our schools. And what's amazing, brother Matthias, is his textbooks, they're 130 years old. And 130 years ago, when he was teaching his university, he drew a fake drawing of a human embryo and a dog embryo to make these things look exactly alike. And he was convicted of fraud by his own secular university. And his textbooks are still in our schools today. And I understand it takes a while to get textbooks updated sometimes, but 130 years. I mean, and people are gonna tell me, oh, there's no agenda behind this. And a lot of people say, well, you're speaking as somebody who doesn't know science. Look, my degree is in computer science. I love science. It's the younger generation a lot of times that tends to fall away. And I think it's time that the younger generation take a stand and actually look at things scientifically and logically and quit special pleading, know God. It's a special pleading when somebody tells me, oh, you're special pleading God. No, they're the ones that are special pleading because matter cannot come from nothing and matter cannot be created or destroyed, which means that something outside of matter would have had to bring matter into existence. No other logical possibility. That is not a special pleading. It's a special pleading to say nothing would have brought matter into existence. Matter just came about on its own. That is special pleading. See, you tell them that they are using their faith, that they have faith and that they're using it. They will call you a liar, obnoxious, that they know, they don't have to have faith. It's that they know. The thing is, is that's what true faith is. That's why true faith comes with assurance because we do know, I guess I believe, but I know. I don't have to guess or wonder. My hope is defined completely different from the world's hope. So my hope is in Christ and my hope is sure. Their hope is in the world and their hope is going to dissolve with a fervent heat. All right, so this is, like, whoa, I don't know what just happened. Except I'm in here. So this is the title, Evolution Equals Faith. It's actually a shirt that I wear often. And the back of it says, evolution equals faith. The only difference is that Bible believers are not ashamed of our faith, whereas the world tries to disguise their faith as science. And then I quoted the verse, keep that which is committed unto thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babylings and oppositions of science, falsely so-called. Bible talks about this evolution thing right there, plain as day, science, falsely so-called. So the site will be up shortly. Well, I've been so busy, I haven't been able to do any work on it. And I've been so busy, if anybody got any shirts, I wouldn't be able to make them. So I haven't released the website yet, but it's funny. I get a lot of evil looks wearing shirts like these and especially this one. It's amazing, people will accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist, rather. They'll say, oh, you're in the conspiracies. Well, the burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim if they're gonna claim that we came, Peking man and then Croagna man, and then whatever man, it man. So all these guys, all the way up to humans, Croagna man, and then you reach the human after Neanderthal. Well, here's the thing, what's so silly about that is they have the burden of proof in their court, but they've never had any fossils that even resemble a mix of a human and an ape. It's not even there. And yet textbooks are still saying, oh, well, we came from monkeys. And then they'll try and deny, like you said earlier, brother, that we came from a ride. And that's what they believe. They literally believe that we came from a rock. And I love what's on that shirt, how it says beware of these vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so-called. So the Bible point blank says, look, before the end comes, you're gonna run into these people that will have this science falsely so-called. And it's so easily debunked. They say the dinosaurs, they died out millions and millions of years ago. Well, two problems with that. Why in the world would the Bible mention dinosaurs multiple times? People are like, oh, that's not the dinosaurs. They weren't talking about dinosaurs. Well, how read us thou? You know, the Bible says point blank that out of his mouth go fiery chambers. Excuse me, not fiery chambers, leaps of fire, sparks of fire leap out, the Bible says of this dinosaur. And it says his scales are his pride, shut up close together. I mean, it just all this stuff about these dinosaurs and yet they're saying, well, they died out millions and millions of years ago. Well, why in the world would the Bible mention these things over and over and over dragons? And now we're making a discovery where we're finding these things and they have the fire breathing chambers in the back of their head. Incidentally, you know, we're finding these fossils that aren't fully fossilized all throughout. And they still have gelatin and fossil tissue in them that's not completely fossilized from these dinosaur bones they're digging up, which means that these dinosaurs would have had to die recently. So when somebody says, oh, well, they died out millions and millions of years ago, there's no proof for that. It's not demonstrable, it's not testable, it's not provable by any means. And how can they call it science? It is in the realm of religion. I don't have enough faith to believe that out of nothing just all of a sudden everything comes into being although it violates the first law of physics. I can't believe that, that's irrational faith. I hold to a rational faith, a rational faith which is obviously the New Testament. People accuse us brother, right? They'll come and say, oh, you know, you just believe the Bible because, you know, the Bible says that it's the Bible. You know, you believe the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the word of God. We have a presupposition obviously not to, let's say for example, we had four guys that came from four different directions and all told us the same thing that these guys aren't really familiar with each other. We would believe them. You know, if they said, hey, something's going on in the news, the four gospels were discovered in four different areas, four completely different times by four completely different authors. And they canonize this thing and this thing lines up perfectly. All the gospels line up perfectly. And yet people are like, oh man, that's one, the godless engineer. The guy was debating the last debate I did. This guy said, oh, you know, do you mean to tell me that with how similar the gospels are that they didn't copy from each other? Because they're so similar, the odds of that are crazy. Well, the odds of saying the world came out of nothing is even more insane. And not to mention the slightest, and they keep accusing us of talking about evolutionary biology, right? They'll say, oh, you're talking about, no, if we boil it down to the smallest cell, and even Richard Dawkins said in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, page 161, he said the simplest life has the amount of complexity in it of over a thousand complete sets of encyclopedias. Richard Dawkins said that. So saying that that just came about on its own is like saying the library, literally the Library of Congress exploded out of a printing shop. And that's the simplest cell. We're not even talking evolutionary biology. We're talking about the simplest cell. So you have to accept that by faith. That is, I don't have enough faith to believe something that ridiculous. You know, so they're irrational. And not only that, they just, a lot of them just hate God, brother. And I think that's the issue that we're running into is people are lovers of their own selves and lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. And that's what I think it really comes down to. They calculated the probabilities of that random, you know, evolution to happen to be like one to the, or 10 to the 49th power or something like that, like one in that, which is beyond what they claim to be possible. But yet, you know, it was a similar, a statement by another scientist that was working on the probabilities as the fellow you mentioned to start with, Matt, by saying, you know, even though it's beyond what we claim as possible, we believe this because the alternative, we just don't want to believe it that God created it. You know, so we just don't want to believe that. So I think that's an interesting point. Absolutely, and the appeal to authority is amazing amongst these so-called scientists. They constantly, and they say, well, that's a logical fail, I see. Don't appeal to authority. Well, here's the thing. They say 97% of academia believe in evolution. But what is so crazy about that, and what's so dishonest about that claim that they're making, about 97% of people believing in evolution, is the fact that when you have to work for our public school system, you have to sign a waiver stating that you will teach the evolutionary curriculum if you're a scientist, whether you agree with it or not. And incidentally, those same waivers that they sign are the same waivers that they say, you know, oh, well, so-and-so believes in evolution. You know, all these people believe in evolution because they signed the waiver, even though, and the thing is, if they don't sign that waiver as teachers, they're out of a job. So these people may not believe in evolution. Most of, a lot of them don't. But they say, look, if I don't sign this waiver, I'm out of a job, I'll lose my job. So it really comes down to the agenda that, and I'm not gonna say the government, but that certain people have to teach this stuff. And, you know, Hitler said, if you let me control the textbooks, I'll control the state. And he also said, if you let, he says, if you tell a lie big enough, loud enough and often enough, people will believe it. And evolution is a pretty big lie. And it blows my mind how many people fall for this stuff. And it's like, just about every day, guys, I go out on the street and I'm talking to people about the gospel, and it's like, wow, you don't believe in evolution? I mean, they like get my, I can't believe you don't think we're related to grass. No, I don't think we're related to grass. You know, oh, we found similar DNA. You know, and I'm sure, I mean, that's easily debunked by just basic laws of physics and basic science. You know, obviously I'm a computer coder. I love code. I love Python. I love all sorts of computer code, but whenever I get code from somebody else, it's a similar code depending on the person. If somebody gives me a code, they have a certain type of coding style. Well, the DNA thing in the grass, I mean, obviously if there's similar strands of DNA, it doesn't mean that we have a common ancestor. It means we have a common designer. This is simple stuff. And why? Because if it's similar, it's gonna be a common designer, just like in a computer field, just like in any field. Yeah, one point that I like to bring out too, I don't know if you discussed it while I was off or not, but I like Ken Ham's approach to dealing with this idea of the evolution as being historical science and not actual testable, observable, and repeatable because evolution, the idea comes from, is basically philosophy really. And so he separates actual science from what they would be described as historical science, which I think is an excellent thing to do because there's no way to test and observe and repeat anything to do with evolution as far as the big bang and macro evolution and the fetal attempts of trying to explain adaptation and use that as a springboard for macro evolution is a pretty weak argument because even within the same species, the variations, you're not having a bird turning into something else. So, I mean, it really does, it's a huge leap of faith really to have to take what they claim. Amen to that. And it's amazing. If you don't mind, maybe we'll talk a little bit about variations. If you guys wanna change the subject, that's fine too. Oh, yeah. Well, they say that the variations are unlimited, right? Well, if it can go two feet, it can go a million miles. Well, let's slow down a little bit and let's talk about the variations. And I understand I'm copying Hovind a little bit here, but I believe it's a great argument. And people, just cause I quote other people at times doesn't mean that that's like illegal. The great debate community, they kicked me out because I did a little bit of what they refer to as quote mining, I think it's great to quote other scientists. I think it's great to quote great men of God that have come up with these discoveries. But one of the things that I love about science is the fact that there are limitations. God said, let them bring forth after their kind. So I've heard evolutionists say, and I'm not straw manning in any sense to any atheist that's listening to this, don't accuse me of straw manning because I have heard this nonsense that well, maybe a dinosaur laid an egg and a bird hatched out. I have heard that. And don't tell me I'm lying cause there are scientists that have said this. So look it up online. I don't have all the names of them, but anyways, when we talk about variations within kinds, obviously those variations are limited. Let's say for example, I had a boat factory, how long in your job or my job was to search for defects in the boat. How long would it take for that boat that's made for the water to turn into an airplane? It's not gonna happen. And that's my point. There's limits to the variations. Right. To try to utilize the idea of spontaneous change because there is no transitional forms is to me just, it's not scientific. It's just trying to force the idea like we're gonna get there no matter what. We don't have any evidence for it, so we're just gonna say it just happened. That's not really a good way to explain it. And see, like I said, they have to go with that train of thought because the evidence is actually stacked against them. So they don't want to admit, well, everything that we've pretty much been believing has been a lie. So they wanna keep it going. There's money involved. You think about the funding that these scientists have to, they have to tow the line to be able to continue, like you said, their jobs, but for the grants, for whatever. I mean, it's just, they've got it pretty much wrapped up and the threat, and they look at creationism as a threat to that. So it almost becomes a personal problem a personal problem with the way that we interpret the same evidence that they have. See, everybody has the same evidence. It's how that evidence is interpreted. And so they take it away from the scientific realm and take it to a personal, and I know you know it, it becomes an attack against you because they don't have evidence. The evidence that they would need to actually have their theory is missing. We have so many fossils of fully, you have the apes, monkeys, full fossils, you have humanoids, where's the transitional forms? You can't find them. Well, oh, I got a quick fix to that. They just kind of jumped from one to the other. Problem solved, that's not science. No. I completely agree. And it's absolutely refreshing to have this conversation, you guys, because Steve McRae, I don't know if you guys are familiar with him and the great debate community. These guys completely, they ejected me because of this. And I'm like, look, you guys are not teaching science. This is not science. This is a religion. And you're accusing me of being religious. You're actually accusing me of having faith. Believe it or not, it takes more faith to believe in evolution and the theory of, the idea of atheism that just somehow out of nothing, you can violate the laws of physics and have everything in it. You'd have to have more faith to believe something like that, to believe in my God. Because it's pretty clear that my God is the God of the Bible based on just the resurrection alone. Just the resurrection proves, and I know people are trying to discredit that. Other college students are trying desperately to discredit it, but they can't and they won't because it is a historical fact that when Jesus rose again, it shook up all of history. Amen. Well, Matt, since you've been in the debate realm a lot with these guys, let me ask you this. What's the idea? I mean, have they pretty much abandoned the Darwin, all the things that Charles Darwin had brought forth in his philosophies? They kind of said that that's old fashioned and they're changing to new modern thinking or do they still pretty much hold to that Darwinian thinking? Well, it's actually interesting you mentioned that because it's interesting you mentioned that because they even say that you're supposed to be, and they quote Stephen Hawking's and I don't have the quote in front. Actually, yeah, I do. This is from an article that was written on Stephen Hawking's and it says Hawking has stated that given the vastness of the universe, aliens likely exist. So not God, but aliens likely exist, just no God, which is irrational, but the contact with them should be avoided. And then they also say he was also making and becoming more intuitive and speculative rather than relying on mathematical proofs. So Hawking just point blank admits and even his writers are like, wow, is he really okay? Yeah, he's saying that we should be more speculative and more intuitive rather than relying on mathematical proofs in order for something to be science. It has to be reliable, excuse me, it has to be demonstrable, testable and provable. None of what they're saying. And they're constantly pulling these quotes from Stephen. Oh, Stephen Hawking's is the greatest, greatest profit of science of all time. Well, what amazes me is one of his quotes. I have it here from my last debate. This is Stephen Hawking's. He said the, and I don't believe in the big bang, but let's say the big bang's true. Let's just give Steve Hawking's the benefit of the doubt. He's telling the truth, the big bang's true. We just bang out of nothing. The first law of thermodynamics violated. And notice what he says here. The universe, and this is Steve Hawking's, the universe would not exist if there was a decrease in the expansion rate one second after the big bang and only one part in 100 million millionths. So that number is insane. I mean, you have to be a total idiot to actually say, okay, there's definitely no creator, even believing the evolutionary theory. So either way you've lost, if you're an evolution, if you either way, if you're an atheist, you've lost the battle because even by Stephen Hawking's own admission and by Richard Dawkins' own admission, and they get mad at us for this brothers, they get mad when you use their own quotes from their own profits.