March the 9th, 2014, lecture discussion number 146 on the Book of Romans, and today is going to be sort of an intermission. It will be helpful if you've missed some of it, because this is the fifth or fourth, or I have lost track in this series that I'm doing. It's a parenthesis of a sort today, and I'm slowing down somewhat, especially after last Sunday. It became apparent that more than a few of you are bouncing out of the bed of the truck as I'm driving along on the road here in my little side expedition into the tenets of evolutionary philosophy. So I thought it would be a better idea to... I'm feeling an echo. I'll try that, see if that goes away. Right off the bat, I want to thank Benjamin from Chicago and say hi to Benjamin. I'm glad he sent me something. generously contributed to what I'm soon to address, which will be general and special relativity here in the very near future, in a couple of weeks, I hope. Obviously, Einstein's concepts. Right now, what's slowing me down with that is that I wanted to take a class from a noted environmentalist, PhD in physics. who would have the opposite positions that I would have. It's very important to me to get as many of the opposite positions that I can get. You might say, well, how can you be opposite on Einstein's concepts? Well, trust me, you can't. Your interpretive biases will show through. So that's slowing me down a little bit, but I'll be done with that in the next couple of weeks. I'm just using it as kind of a refresher for me, because I lose track of some of those positions. Anyway, I know you're going to be just really excited, and you're having a hard time containing that excitement. Some of you are not having a hard time at all. Anyway, Benjamin sent me more resources, for which I'm very grateful, and again, thank you, Benjamin. Anyway, let's try to step back and take a different perspective here today, a little different viewing angle, if you will, and see if we can bring more better clarity. Sometimes this subject can be so technical and the vocabulary so difficult that it's a good idea to just kind of relax somewhat. And so we're going to do that. I'm going to read to you things that you know very, very well. And hopefully you're now beginning to look at them and see all kinds of information that's just not... God, of course, when he wrote his book, had the capacity to write a very deep book. He's God, after all, and he has put things in it that are And I said in the previous weeks that one thing that would be in the Bible everywhere would be the first and second laws of thermodynamics, because of physical death. So, when you start to read what he has said, pay attention when he starts talking about, or when he reveals to you the truths of his creation. So, here we are again. Genesis 1, I'm going to read the first three verses. In the beginning God created. the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void. Is that high entropy or low entropy? And darkness was on the face of the deep. Do I have water? I have water. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Whenever the Spirit of God hovers, as the Spirit of God hovers over Mary, overshadows Mary, the Spirit of God overshadowing the dark deep of the earth. Pay attention. Make those connections immediately. Then God said, let there be light. What is the source of the light? Where does the light come from? Is it photon light? Article-based light? Is it some other kind of light? Let there be light, and there was light, and God saw the light, and it was good. He calls the light good. It's very important. And God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, so the evening and the morning were the first day. Now, over here to verse 16. Then God made two great lights. The greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, he made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw it was good, so the evening and the morning were the fourth day." So that is the first and the fourth day. That's the ones I've picked out. Remember, evolutionary philosophy has these three foundation points. For those of you on the internet, I pointed to the sun, natural selection and vast amounts of time. So, we're beginning today by reading those verses again to reinforce what God says the order is. Light, primable. By primable, I say this a lot. I mean the first light, primable light. It comes to the earth. Now, Christ in John 8.12 says, I am the primable light, the first light of Genesis 1.3. He said, when you see me, I am the light that showed up when the earth was formless and void. and darkness was on the face of it, I am the primable light of Genesis 1.3, says that in John 8.12. He cannot make himself more clear. He is that light of Genesis 1.1-3, coming to a world in darkness that is covered, submerged in water. And notice again that the light is called good. I'd expect that. Christ would say, I'm the good light. He's God. He calls himself good, his coming to the darkness is good, but what he does not do is call the darkness good. The light is good, the coming is good, but not the darkness. It's not called good. So, obvious question. Why do I even have darkness? Somehow I have darkness. Why do I have it? What's the next obvious question? Where's it come from? What's the source of the darkness? Does God end the darkness? Yes, he does. Not just on a temporal basis, but he ends it entirely. Let me read that, Revelation 22.5. He's talking about the restoration of all things, and then this verse is there. There shall be no night there. They need no lamp nor light of the sun." So, he eliminates, at the restoration of all things, the need of the sun. There is no sun there. Darkness is ended. And notice that word. Let me write that word. There is. That word there. There is no darkness there. No more curse, no more night, no more darkness there. So where then is the darkness that remains? Or does any darkness remain? Where is it? Where did it come from? Where does it go? What is its source? Why is it there? Those are the obvious questions, but for today we'll get into those more next week. Notice that God provides himself to be the light, the source of light, the source of life at Genesis 1 and at Revelation 22. So I have light coming, and that light does something, and that light is God. And that light that came on the first day is distinct, completely distinct from the sunlight that comes on the fourth day. So, when you get, as you read through those, you will find that the light that came on the first day, again, it's Jesus Christ himself, John 8, 12. That light, that primable light, is the energy source that does something on the third day. What does it do? It causes an explosion. An explosion of what? Plant life, vegetation. The energy from the first light, the energy source that's God himself, he's the light, it brings vegetation on the earth. Plants, trees, fruits, grass, herbs. God explodes plant life upon the earth. Vegetation. We go from the Ezekiel 28 model now to an organic or vegetable model, a vegetation model. Trees are yielding fruit. on the third day, and a bunch of questions now again come out, right? He instantly made trees that bore fruit. With what? With the primeval light, which is who? Which is him. He's giving you basic acts of creation from his perspective, which is what? It's the truth. He's trying to tell you the truth. Not trying. He instantly made trees that bore fruit on the third day. Obvious questions. How big are the trees? How big of a tree did he make? How many trees did he make? How big was the fruit? What kind of fruit was it? How much fruit was per tree? Clearly, the language says that they are fully formed trees. Genesis, the whole point of this is that Genesis 1 does not describe uniformitarianism processes. What do I mean by that? Slow processes over vast amounts of time. It does not describe that. It describes explosions of life, fully formed, complete, functional creatures and vegetation instantly. That's what it describes. So you can have a uniformitarianism view, if you will. I can't stop you. It's your will that does it. But it will not be consistent with what Genesis describes. You can beat it to fit, but it is not what is being described in Genesis. And I bring this up again because last week in Exodus 8.16, he produced instantly from dust tiny stinging gnats. He does it instantly. There is no uniform processes in God's Word. It's all instant. Eventually, we're going to investigate the account of Genesis and the account of the Exodus plagues and see how they relate. But for today, I just want you to notice that it is his light, which is himself, that brings forth the ecology of the third day. And then, after that, sunlight finally is established. Sunlight and starlight. Obviously what metabolic process, if you will, has occurred on the third day that does not need sunlight? Photosynthesis. I have fully formed trees. I do not need the sun. So I have functioning photosynthesis, which raises the next most obvious of the obvious questions. If God did not need the sun in the creation or preservation of life, why did he make it? If he himself can be the light source, and ultimately he gets rid of the sun in Revelation 22.5, why do we even have a sun to begin with? What is the point of the sun? What's the purpose of it? He does not have it in the eternal order, but he has it in this order, which is replacing what order? What came before the creation of man? You have to decide the chronology of that. What is before the creation of man? I have angels. I have the angelic realm. What happened to them? Those are the obvious questions. So why did he create the sun? What did the angels think when they saw the explosion? Because they're witnessing it. The Bible is very clear. The angelic realm witnesses this explosion of physical material. What did they think when they saw the sun? They know that God is light. They see him every day. Why did he make another source of light? Does he need it? Clearly he doesn't. He wants it. Why? Not only does he have the greater light, he has the lesser light. Now, I know the typology of all of that, and I'll get to it in a minute. To repeat a little bit, the sun is created by God after his primeval self, light, explodes vegetation. The sun has no light creating or giving value in this account. It does not. It is not necessary for low entropy preservation in this account. It has no life-creating value. And as you know, those two statements are in absolute contradiction to the evolutionary premise. The evolutionary premise says that sunlight is directly and singularly responsible for the origin of life on earth. They say, as you know, that sunlight and heat entering into this open system that we call this Earth atmospheric or Earth ecology or Earth cosmology. Sunlight and heat entering into the open system overcomes the first and second laws of thermodynamics. And high entropy that was here now becomes, is reversed or converted into low entropy over a vast amount of time and chance. And those are our three things. I have the sun, however, as its foremost mechanism. And Genesis directly opposes that. Almost word by word opposes it. It's almost as if God knew that somebody would conceive of a position that says the sun is the mechanism as an energy source for the conversion or the reversing of a high entropy event into a low entropy condition and the creation of life will originate because of the sun. It's almost like He knew it. Of course he knew. It is the exact opposite of evolutionary philosophy. Can't get more exact. I run into people all the time that just say, no, no, no, no, no. Evolutionary philosophy and Genesis can be, they can be somehow made to fit with each other. And I'm just astonished by that. And if you're interested in a book that will destroy that line of thinking, come see me. I'll give you one. I have it here in my box of stuff. The primable light brings forth instantly life. The sunlight now has a role, if you will. It's a temporal role because it is eliminated in Revelation, so it has a role. of preserving that low-entropy condition, but it does not have a reversing capability, nor does it have a creation capability. Only the primeval light creates from nothing, or in the case of Exodus, from dust, and does so immediately. That is the Genesis record. So, again, the question, let's repeat the question, why did God place the greater light and the lesser light in place at all? Why did he do it? He's making a point. Now, clearly, again, the typology is there. That's probably, the symbolism is there. That's Christ, the greater light, and that's the church, or Israel, or both, that is the lesser light reflecting Christ. I understand the heliocentricity and the thermonuclear reactions and the fusion and the converting hydrogen to helium and all that now enters our discussion. I've got all of that, but there is something he is teaching. Who is he teaching it to primarily? Who's witnessing it primarily? So how is the creation of the Son and the placing of the Son when He does not need it? And it's a temporal position for the Son. He eliminates it in Revelation 22.5 and replaces it with Himself completely. So why? What is happening? Does He know that people are going to worship the Son? He's omniscient, he's outside of time, he created time, he knows they're going to worship this ball of hydrogen, helium, and other elements that is a thermonuclear device, essentially, a reaction. He knows it. He knows the evolutionary philosophy is going to make the sun central to their position. So why? Being that the evolutionists now, they desperately require the sun to be the fundamental mechanism for spectacular order to rise from disorder, and they need it to be billions of years ago. All of that is critical to them. And remember this conflict that we're talking about that started with Mr. Hamm and Mr. Nye, that I frankly was dissatisfied with. Not to be insulting to either one of them, but I was dissatisfied. And frustrated would be another way to put it, so I've decided, as you know, to insert myself. And they've yet to contact me. I was expecting any minute now that they would call me and thank me for helping them. So far, the phone has not rung. It's possible that I've just missed the call, so I'll check. But anyway. This conflict between monistic evolutionary philosophy and dualistic Christian theology is fought over, essentially, sunlight and heat, natural selection as the mechanism for complexity and vast amounts of time that provides the necessary component that reduces the mathematical opposition to all this, to the randomness of the chance that's an element in there. So those three things, the sun providing the heat and energy into an open system in order to allow for the creation and the preservation of a low entropy system, and the natural selection mechanism that makes things more and more complex, and the vast amounts of time which reduces the probability, or does in their minds, it's the mathematical component, if you will. So to reword that just a bit, because I know this is difficult and it's very hard to listen to, And I got all of that and that's why I'm doing what with it every week now for the next couple of weeks. I'm just baiting you. This is the beating part, the repetition beating part. Try to reword it in another way. Hopefully just small pieces will, and I will hand you out books, small pieces will fit in and you'll go, wow, that's what the weird guy was talking about. Let me reword it one more time. The sun provides the energy into an open system necessary to overcome high entropy predisposition, which what I mean is, Every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder. We have open and closed system. Now, in an open system, they say, I've got the sun, which will overcome this predisposition to move from order to disorder. That's the purpose of the sun for them. Because everyone knows the entropy of a closed or isolated system, a system that doesn't have the sun, that system, low entropy, cannot or high entropy cannot decrease. So, the sun becomes very, very important in order to overcome this disorder from order predisposition. And natural selection is an unintelligent mechanism. There is no intelligent agency. You want to call it a natural process, you can, but they want an unintelligent mechanism. It's critical to their philosophy. And then natural selection provides that unintelligent mechanism and it contributes to this ubiquitous irreducible complexity. What do I mean by all of that? It's big words. Ubiquitous means it's everywhere. What is irreducible? It means you cannot change it. What is complexity? That means it's amazingly complex. And if I take any part of it, the system collapses. So they say natural selection is this unintelligent process that has made you and you are spectacularly complex. So I have to have an explanation for that. The sun into an open system provides the energy. Natural selection is the unintelligent mechanism. And then I have that contributes to this. The irreducible complexity is universal. It's ubiquitous. And then I have billions and billions and billions of years with uniform processes that are all the same. These processes are the same for billions and billions of years. And that gives me the mathematical component where, and I have an essential randomness in evolutionary philosophy, a chance element. So that's why they're there. That's why I bring them up. Discussing them as as much as I can and so when I hear that I ask three basic questions can the Sun By itself does sunlight with heat Have the ability to cause a life to rise from non-life If I just bake it in the Sun for billions of billions of billions of years can I get? Life from non-life Can I get biological complexity and with sunlight and heat and natural selection irreversible, I'm sorry, not irreversible, irreducible complexity. Can I get irreducible complexity from sunlight and heat and some natural selection random process? And I've got to get a biological complexity to come from non-biological material. So, if I heat a rock, can I get You! That's simplistic. They won't like me for saying that. They'll say, of course you can, because we have billions and billions and billions of years, and we have this marvelous natural selection process. So, is natural selection a possible mechanism for irreducible biological systems and processes? That becomes the second question. And then the third question, has there actually even... If I grant you the billions of years, is that enough time? Do you need trillions of years? I'll give you trillions if you want it. I'm really kind of a friendly fellow. If you're not happy with billions, I'll let you have trillions. And if trillions aren't enough, you can have more. Have all the time you want. Has there been enough time for the sun and natural selection cause this irreducible biological complexity. Okay? I don't concede that they can. I don't think they possess that capability. I don't think natural selection is a mechanism that will work, and I don't think there's enough time. And I don't think hitting something with sunlight and heat, the Bible obviously tells me that's not the mechanism at all. It's a primable light. Not the greater light, if that makes sense. OK, let's talk about hydrogen to helium thermonuclear reaction. I know that you're fascinated by that. That is the size and the luminosity of the sun. How big is the sun? How big has it been? Has it ever been anything but as big as it is? And how about its luminosity or its brightness? Has that changed over time? Remember, the whole purpose of evolutionary philosophy, I have to have uniformitarianism. I have to have uniform processes. that are the same for billions and billions of years. That's very critical. Okay. Time for medicine. It's as hard for me to do this subject as it is for you to listen to it, so have some sympathy for me. And I can't help but get upset about it. I can't. I can't stop myself. Every time I do it, I think of some conversation that I've had where I just cannot believe that The position that they have is the position that they want. It stuns me. I will get to it in a minute. I find it astonishing that someone would want to believe this. I can't get past it, so I get kind of frustrated. I want to shake them. What's wrong with you? Why do you want this? For many years now, those of us who who have rejected, in a public way, evolutionary philosophy. And it comes in my mail. I'm going to get routine mail. It's almost like it's spam. It's the same thing every time, over and over and over again, but it's new to them. They're 18 years old, and they just heard it from their freshman college biology teacher, and they believe him or her, and so they write me. Aha! Stupid person in Alaska. Deal with this. So I'm confronted with them, but they're all the same, they've never changed, and of course they'll say the same about me. But the one that I got a lot, I get a lot still, is God then is a liar. That is what I get from the advocates of monism. Again, for those of you who haven't been here for the last, oh my goodness, six months, monism says that we are simply a physical component. All we are is physical. We are reducible, but we're reducible to physical particles. We are a particle-based machine, and that machine has no existence. What I mean by that is that you have what you think is existence, but pretty soon you will perish physically, and then it will be revealed, though you won't know it because you have perished forever. but you will then become reduced to small particles again and randomness. There is no existence. Existence requires that you have eternity or immortality, forever existence. Now your destiny or your destiny is an issue for you. The Bible makes that clear. But monism says no. When you die, you will cease to exist and that is the end of your existence and you will never have any Any memory, you will have nothing. You go into nothingness. Eventually, just little tiny particles. That's their philosophy. That's monism. That's evolutionary philosophy. That's what evolutionists believe. And they'll tell you. I've had them tell me in debates. I've had them tell me. I've made them tell their children in debates. It's astonishing. Again. But they tell me all the time, God is a liar. That's the God then is a liar response. And what they mean is that God obviously is a liar because he has intentionally buried in the geological strata, the geological sediments, geological columns, whichever term you will. We'll get into geological column, by the way, eventually. We'll decide whether or not it really exists. Of course, does it exist in its totality as it is in the textbooks? But we'll confront that here in a few weeks. But God intentionally buried in the geological sediments fossils of animals that have been scientifically determined to have been hundreds of millions of years old. Therefore, God is a liar. He's a trickster. In other words, God is attempting to deceive the scientific community. See, I always ask them a question. Did the animal ever live? Or did he just simply make a fossil? and stick it in the ground? Did he make the animal, kill the animal, put it through a permineralization process, turn it into a fossil, and bury it over a uniform period of time through a sediment layer after layer over billions of years, or millions, hundreds of millions at least, or did he just say, hey, I'll just stick a fossil there? And I'll make the fossil instead of the animal and make it go through the fossilization process. That's my first response to them. Both positions they'll accept because their view is that God is tricking the scientific community. Or fossils are. If God exists and he put fossils in the ground by whatever means, then he is lying because the scientific community has dated them to be hundreds of millions of years old. and the Bible is clearly saying they are not. So, God is lying and God is deceiving the scientific community into concluding that the earth is billions of years old and for the purpose of then doing what to the scientists? Every scientist that rejects God based on his scientific evidence is going to have what as his destiny? So God, not only is a liar, he's evil because he's tricking his wonderful scientists into believing something that isn't true, it's all fake evidence, and then he's condemning them for being wrong. So he's what? He's evil. And again, Pascal's wager, I hope you recognize it. God lies, God is evil. They say if the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years according to the Bible, according to God's word, why do all the dating systems for fossils and geological strata indicate ages of millions, or in the case of rocks, millions of years? So they mockingly say that God did this intentionally to fool the scientists so that he could condemn them all. I bring this up today because this is ultimately what they say about the sun. The sun is likewise used and is also part of the God is a liar canard. Again, to repeat myself from the previous weeks, just for the purpose of repetition and making you suffer. Your choices are uniformitarianism, this uniform process that is billions of years in the making of the same processes for all of this time, or you have the catastrophic, catastrophism position. Did it happen slowly? Did it happen quickly? Did it happen because of uniform sediment deposits over hundreds of millions of years, or did it happen because of a very rapid catastrophic event? Are fossils in the geological column representing the slow uniform process? Or are they the aftermath of a rapid catastrophe? So, there's your choices. The evolutionist says uniformitarianism proves that God is a liar. The Bible says everything is instant, quick. There is no slow system with God. He's very fast. But for the sake of today, assuming a slow uniform sequence. Is to me an interesting logical exercise. If I take the slow uniform sequence position and I assume that it's true because I have to assume it's true. They'll say, no, you don't. We have dating systems. Well, let me just go through the logic of it. I think it's circular. Once I make the decision that it is a slow, uniform sequence, and then I assign unimaginable great aging to those sequences, that starts me into a logical spiral. It goes something like this. This is what they'll tell me. And they do tell me. They are absolutely, when I say this to them, they agree with me every single time. The evolutionists, I'm honest. The geological strata is very old, they will say. created by a slow, very old uniform process. Therefore, the rocks in the geological strata are very old, because the rocks are in a geological stratus that is created by a very old uniform process, and the geological strata is therefore very old. Therefore, the fossils that are in proximity to the rocks in the assumed very old strata are likewise very old. And therefore, uranium-to-lead decay is demonstrating very old ages because we assume the levels of pre-existing lead and uranium that reflect very old ages. Therefore, God is a liar. That make any sense to you at all? It makes perfect sense to them. What they're doing is they're saying the process of uniformitarianism, the uniform process that created the geological strata, the process is a very old process. Therefore, what it creates is very old. Therefore, what's in it has to be very old. Therefore, what's next to what's in it is very old. Therefore, the dating system that we date, the things that are in the strata, dates them as very old because we already knew they were very old because we started out with the premise that they were very old and everything we say has to be very old. It's like this. A equals 3.8 trillion or 3.8 billion. B equals 3.8 billion. Okay? C is touching A. And C is touching B. And D is touching C. And E is touching D. And D is also touching B. And F is touching A and touching G. So everything is there for what? 3.8 billion. Then they come along and they say, this is our dating system, and we're going to date F independently. And F dates to be 3.8 billion years old, just to use a number. We'll get to that because of when they say life started to team in the oceans. My point is that The dating system is now going to say 3.8 billion because they start with the premise that it's 3.8 billion. All they're doing is circular... I don't know what to call it. I'm refusing to call it logic. But the ultimate is that God is lying. And God is evil. That I expect. Because that is the key element of evolutionary philosophy. Assuming a slow, uniform sequence right off the bat is problematic. Everything is contaminated by that assumption. And fossils and permineralization is a rapid, catastrophic occurrence. It is the opposite of a slow, uniform system. If I find a fossil and I find permineralization, I know that I'm going to find a rapid, catastrophic occurrence. Bone replaced by mineral with a very warm water solution usually is an indicator of some kind of volcanic activity coupled with a flood or a water-based activity. They're both of them together. So anyway, today, enough of that. We're talking about the sun today. Next week I'll revisit all this fossil bed stuff that's in the newspaper. The Dao Hu Gao by Oda. Have you been following that? The Chinese? I'm starting to like the Chinese. I have to. They have all our money. They provide me all of our stuff now. The Chinese, what is cool about them, by the way, there's probably, there's no question about it, there's far more Christians in China than there are in the United States. It's a mathematical premise. They have a billion and a half people probably by now. We have a piddly little 350 million maybe. They outnumber us. I got a kick out of those two or three miners that were buried a couple hundred feet below the surface. Did you read about those guys? They dug themselves out. They were 200 feet down or so. I don't know exactly. They decided immediately, upon being buried, to do what? To start digging. They figured out which way was up, and they just started digging their way out. Because they knew something that we in this country have not figured out quite yet. They knew that the government was not going to help them, nor was it even going to look for them. They were on their own. The sooner we figure that out, the better we will be. They are, by their very nature, they're not afraid of Darwin. I said that a few weeks ago. In this country, we're panicked by Darwinism, and we're happy about the state, and the opposite is true in China. They are not afraid of Darwin, but they are very much afraid of communism. I can't repeat that enough. But anyway, the Chinese are out there digging, and they're finding fossils, and they're finding huge fossil beds. Again, let me read it and repeat it. The Daohugao, by Ota. is a biological term for paleontologists. And the Chinese are finding fossilized fur. They are finding fossilized feather and skin and stomach contents. That's very unusual. Let me quote something for you. This is a quote from a paleontologist that is afraid of Darwin. The Chinese, they're just digging stuff up. And here's a quote, we're finding weird flying, gliding mammals. We're finding fish and dinosaurs and flying reptiles and salamanders and lizards. We've got all of this wonderful, wonderful stuff. Another quote. These fossils, these animals seem to be from the same environments and there's lots of trees and lots of water. So the Chinese have found a mass mortality event with mammals in it. That's a problem. There's rapid catastrophic burial over a vast area. The area is amazingly large. Now, it's going to be difficult for the Darwinists to control the Chinese. They are not controllable. Again, they have all our money. You can't bribe them. Their scientific endeavors are not funded by us. They do not have a philosophical agenda. That doesn't mean they won't acquire one. But they are certainly much, much different than our scientific academic community. And they are already saying things that make the Darwinists just collapse to the ground in a loathing spasm. They say things like this, I'll quote, the animals suddenly appeared. You can't say that. What's the matter with you Chinese? The animals represent diversity in the level of phyla and classes. You can't say that. I have the Darwin cone. I'll explain that in a minute. Their sudden appearance makes them very special. The find is very rich in species diversity. I have all kinds of stuff here. It's unbelievable, spectacular, complex, diverse remains of a major mass mortality event with mammals and dinosaurs. So, oops, I have a key question that comes to the forefront. If the pre-catastrophe world had a much richer, much greater species diversity than our current world. How do we explain that? The Chinese paleontologists are suggesting that Darwin's cone, and they even say so, is upside down, which would make perfect sense to me because the Darwinist entropy cone is upside down. What I mean by that is that Darwin says that we had a small cone in the beginning, and it goes to this massive diversity. So everything comes from a very small beginning of low diversity, and then we get to where we are now, high diversity. The Chinese are going, no, that's crazy. We found a mass mortality event that suggests that the cone was much more diverse hundreds of millions of years ago, if we accept you're hundreds of millions of years. The diversity was much greater here than it is now. That's a big problem. Clever, these Chinese. And again, the Darwinian thermodynamic model, as their cone, is also backwards. I'll explain that next week. says Darwinian evolutionary entropy with regard to thermodynamics is like a tornado running backwards. What he means by that is if I had a tornado go through a very complex housing development or city, I would see it in real time as it went through. I would see it destroying everything, rendering this complexity into rubble. That would be their cone. Evolutionary entropy cone is the opposite of that. It would be like running the film backwards. And I would see the tornado actually creating all this complexity. I should get that movie for us. That would be something that you would like to see. You would. Did you know that in the movie theater you can buy popcorn for eight dollars? Did you know that this is a money making opportunity for the church? I could show movies on entropy, which you would hardly ever watch. But you would do what? That's right, you would eat the popcorn. And do you know how much that $8 popcorn actually cost that theater operator, including the bag? $0.08. That's a 10,000% profit. That's right up the alley of the modern church today. How can we turn that down? Anyway, we're losing time, aren't we? I'm in trouble? Am I in trouble? Everyone in the audience is hoping you to say yes, but no one believes that. Okay, we're supposed to be dealing with the origin of the sun today. The evolutionists are aware of a few problems with the sun. They love their sun. Their sun is is a very important to them and they uh... you know i make the joke that they worship the sun is on worshippers and i doubt that they could come up with any evidence that would refute that but anyway They estimate that the sun's composition today is 72 to 74% hydrogen and 24 to 26% helium and 2% other elements. That's important for you to know. Mostly hydrogen, say three-quarter hydrogen, one-quarter helium, but there's other elements involved as well. And many of them will also again mockingly assert that this ratio that is hydrogen to helium demonstrates that the age of the sun is about 4.6 billion years. So why did God give the sun an appearance of 4.6 billion years, and God is a liar, and God is evil, and back we go, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? But other evolutionists notice there's an issue with this. If I say the sun is 4.6 billion years old, and I have a hydrogen to helium ratio, and I have a uniform process, then what can I do? I can start going backwards with it. If I know something about the sun, I can find out how hot it was. 3.8 billion years ago. That's very important. Because I have to have an explosion of primitive life in the oceans. And that means I have to have oceans that are actually what? That's right, oceans. And evolutionists notice, uh-oh. You see, the luminosity or the brightness of the sun at its infancy would be significantly less than it is today. because I have thermonuclear reaction, I have fusion, I have hydrogen to helium. According to the standard solar model, the sun would gradually brighten over its lifetime. If the sun is indeed 4.6 billion years old, its current energy output and luminosity would be at a minimum 25% greater than at its infancy. And perhaps as much as 30 to maybe even 40%. You'll hear all kinds of numbers, but for our sake, we'll take 20% and be happy. I'm a friendly person. And that presents some problems. The sun is very important to thermodynamic preservation and reversibility, as we've discussed. And certainly, low entropy preservation is going to be affected if I have a difference in the heat and luminosity of the sun. I have this irreducible biological complexity that we have to deal with, and I need this energy source in this open system that eventuates that. So having less entropy at a time three and a half billion years ago, when evolutionary concepts say that oceans were teeming with primitive life, is not helpful to their position. It's called the young faint sun. It's got to be explained, and of course there's a veritable buffet table of explanations, and we're going to investigate them. This is also, you might know it as the young faint sun paradox. Or you should know it. Now how, put it another way, how is it that at the very time the sun is needed desperately for providing energy for these evolutionary principles, it is at its weakest energy and luminosity? Oh, you see, over time, thermonuclear fusion converts hydrogen to helium, resulting in the sun's core becoming denser. As it burns, the core becomes denser. Now, the sun must then burn hotter to withstand gravitational collapse, where it'll fold in on itself. You may not understand that today, but what's going to happen to you? I'm going to make you understand it by the beat method. The infant sun has less helium, so its core was cooler. The fusion rate was less furious three and a half billion years ago. In 1972, Carl Sagan and others, you might remember Carl Sagan, he's dead now, so he knows things. But anyway, he did not cease to exist. In 1972, him and others realized that this faint young sun problem would have resulted in less heat. The earth would have been completely frozen three and a half billion years ago. I wouldn't have enough heat to keep the water liquid. So now I go to the geological evidence. And guess what? The paleontology evidence. The earth did, in fact, have liquid oceans and teeming life. And it was, in fact, warmer, according to that evidence. So it's in conflict. with a thermonuclear fusion rate. So the evidence is that I had warmer temperatures, so I'll just say uniform temperatures as with today, because we all love uniformitarianism. Okay, so only some of us love it. So how was this spectacular order not sent into high irreversible entropy? Well, Sagan said methane, CH4 and ammonia, NH3. essentially a greenhouse gas solution, and pumped up levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in concert with the methane and the ammonia. All of that overcame the infant sun energy level problem and produced greenhouse gases, and we had a warm earth now, and we had all this steaming life. Isn't it interesting that carbon dioxide saves evolution 3.5 billion years ago, but today we've got to get rid of it? Today it's bad, back then it's good. I think that's greatly ironic. CO2 and CH4 are evil today, but they were the salvation of evolution three and a half billion years ago. But sadly for Carl and his friends, geological evidence didn't support his necessary levels of carbon dioxide. The evidence is that there wasn't enough carbon dioxide to trap enough gases to keep the earth warm, to keep the oceans liquid. And of course, the ultraviolet sunlight breaks down ammonia, so ammonia doesn't really work. And if I have methane, I have to have primordial methane producers. How many do I need? So then they say, well, maybe the Earth had less reflectivity. In other words, it absorbed more heat back in those days. The Earth had less land mass. So it was darker overall, and the oceans, you know how we love the oceans, retaining heat. That's our new theory today. The oceans held on to enough warmth to overcome the onslaught of total glaciation, or what I like to call ice baldness. The clouds were different, they'll say. Fewer clouds was proposed. But clouds have two effects. Think of the songs. I've looked at clouds from both sides now. You have to be old to know that. But clouds have two effects. The high clouds trap heat and the low clouds reflect heat. And we in Alaska, we know this. We know what clouds do here. We're cloud experts. And removing or lessening clouds, that's not going to work because I'm going to change the reflectivity or I'm going to change the high trap heat. and water will freeze. And again, I need the primordial microbes to produce more methane. And then they say, well, maybe the sun was closer to the earth. Well, hey, wait a minute. What about uniformitarianism? Look at what they're doing to their beloved uniformitarianism. I have a different atmosphere. I have primordial microbes producing methane. I've got some kind of ammonia source. I've got no clouds. I've got lots of clouds. I've got suns closer, further They reject their beloved uniformitarianism so quickly because of the faint young son paradox. The evolutionists are nothing if not flexible, or what I like to call non-falsifiable. I'll get back into non-falsifiable. It doesn't matter what the evidence shows, it cannot falsify evolution. Evolution will not allow itself to be falsified. And they will reject any test. They will reject the Chinese. They will reject carbon-14. They will reject everything. Nothing falsifies it because. It's not about the evidence. It's about the why. Back to that. Why do evolutionists want this evolution to be true when it means their loss of personhood? Who wants to cease to exist? Raise your hand if you want to cease. Who wants that? But they do want it. They want you to believe it. Why? Why don't I ever find an evolutionist that says, look, I believe evolution because I buy all of this stuff, but it's a horrible, it's a despairing, hopeless concept that strips all purpose and meaning from our lives. It strips all the goodness out of our society. It is horrible. We have theologians that say that all the time. They believe a doctrine and they'll call it horrible. I will tell you, if you believe a doctrine that's horrible, you're in really big trouble. This is Chronister's law, unviolable law, inviolable. law of capacity, Chronister's law of capacity. If an evolutionist had the capacity that says that evolutionary philosophy is hopeless and despairing and is horrible and strips all purpose and meaning, if they had the capacity to do that, they wouldn't be an evolutionist. They would instead believe Genesis 1, 16 through 19. Last week I got into a good discussion with a few of you on personal entropy. which is Romans 126 through 32. There comes a time when you are, we are physically going towards disorder, but we also can spiritually and emotionally, yay for the musicians spotting the change. Okay, two out of three is not bad here. We have personal entropy. What I mean by that is individuals will become more and more disordered. God calls it debased, calls it darkness. There's a wonderful word that he takes out of his first chapter of Genesis and applies it to individuals. He gives them over to their own darkness. We have personal entropy. What stops us from going into darkness? We need an energy source. We have to have an energy source. Where do we need it? Where's it got to be? It's got to be where? It has to be an internal energy source. Who says that he provides an internal energy source that keeps us from going into darkness? That's the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's called one of the great mysteries. the mystery of the indwelling, one of the eleven mysteries. It is a reverence to personal entropy. Let's rise and be dismissed.