All Episodes
June 22, 2024 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:42:13
John Mackay

John Mackay, a geologist and creationist, has debated many of the world’s leading evolutionists and atheists. John speaks around the world on issues such as creation, evolution, the Bible, Noah’s flood, and origins.https://creationresearchuk.com↓ ↓ ↓ Waggleworthy Offers Natural dog treats 100% sourced and manufactured in the UK. We don't use preservatives, grains or sugars in our treats and they're exactly what they say on the tin. Waggleworthy are the only company to offer a money back guarantee - we send a free sample with every order - if your dog doesn't like them, send the bag back for a full refund. SAVE 20% with code DELINGPOD20 at http://www.waggleworthy.com — — — — Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk x

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I love Dennypole.
Come and subscribe to the podcast, baby.
I love Dennypole.
And listen, mother, come subscribe with me.
I love Dennypole.
Welcome to the Dennypod with me, James Dennypole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before we meet him, a quick word from one of our sponsors.
Hooray!
We have a new sponsor.
This episode is brought to you by Waggle Worthy Dog Treats.
Can you guess what they are?
There's a clue in the name.
I've been to their website and the response is amazing.
They've had over 100 five-star reviews and they're the only such company which offers a money-back guarantee on your produce.
I know from personal experience how important it is to get your dog treats right.
Because if you don't get them right, your dog won't do anything.
When I try calling my dog with one of the ordinary dog biscuits I've brought along from the tin to try and fob it off with, it just ignores me and goes running after sheep instead.
Waggle-worthy dog treats look the business.
They are made of fish which, as you know, gives your dog a beautiful, glossy coat.
They don't use preservatives, grains or sugars or any nasties in their treats.
It's pure, 100% goodness.
They offer a free sample with every order so that if your dog doesn't like them you can send the bag back for a full refund and you get a 20% discount if you use the special DelingPod discount codes.
So go to www.waggleworthy.com natural dog treats and use the code delingpod d-e-l-i-n-g-p-o-d-p-o-d 20 delingpod 20 i recommend them even though i haven't tried them then i know in my bones get it
i know in my bones that they are really good and i'm looking forward to getting my free sample and so is the dog welcome to the delingpod john mckay um tell me tell me about it i know I know you're a geologist.
I know that you talk a really good game about creation.
But tell me what exactly you do?
Okay, my background, not raised in the church, so didn't grow up being brainwashed, which is a common accusation that my anti-creationist friends like to throw.
it sort of is a real help because when we were doing debates in England against you know your professors from Cambridge or Oxford that was the first route they went but it didn't work because when I looked at the evidence being raised with a father who'd been trained in law and practices like that
I guess I'd learned how to argue by listening to him but I did learn one thing that if you want to argue evidence facts the evidence does not support evolution so that was my background framework even though I was not a creationist at that stage I didn't become a creationist till after I'd left university so that sort of bit of background became a Christian in the in the roots so no apologies
I'm I'm firmly committed to Christianity and defending that as well as the truth of creation and it basically brought me up to you and I was a Christian in the Brought me to the attention of the head of the government in Queensland, and the Minister of Education invited me in, along with my then colleague Ken Ham, to actually discuss how we could teach creation in the schools.
So, all of those things sort of also threw me into the limelight.
I ended up on front pages of newspapers, and that was the last private day I ever had.
From then on it's been very public.
That's really interesting, because, John, I reckon about
Five years ago, as recently as that, I would have never considered having a nutcase like you on my pod, because I knew at the time, I just knew that all sensible people believed in, that Darwin was one of the great thinkers of our time, of history, that it was obvious that we'd evolved from the primordial slime and that
You know, no serious person contended this established fact.
And also, I would have thought that anyone teaching creationism in schools was a kind of dangerous religious freak.
Now, that's not my position now, I have to say.
You'll be relieved to hear.
But I'm sure there's going to be quite a few of my viewers and listeners, because As you know.
The brainwashing is so powerful and relentless.
I've tried this sometimes.
I've tried reading an article about science or written by a sort of science writer and see how long it is before he gets to a point where he makes a nod to evolution.
It's almost impossible to read an article about science which doesn't include an acceptance of evolutionary theory.
That's how deep it runs.
I mean, Richard Dawkins turned up one day at a meeting in England where I was at.
He'd rung me earlier during the day demanding I come to his studio for an interview, and I said, I can't, I'm teaching year 12s in one of your public colleges, right?
Which was really how to raise his temperature quite suddenly.
So he turned up at a meeting, and there's no doubt about it, he is firmly of the attitude that evolution explains everything.
Now, he did a recording of what he wanted for me to do for the then-coming Darwin Festival, and that's publicly available online or through our website, if people want to see it.
But what you find is, even when you tackle such supposedly learned people as Richard Dawkins, once you undermine evolution, the rest of it just floats away.
It's a philosophy, not a fact.
It's a demonstrable story you put in your head.
It does not explain the evidence at all.
So that's why In one sense we do so well in debates because they don't want to come back for a second thrashing.
I'm not boasting there.
Have a look at some of our debates and it's almost sad to actually see sometimes.
Yeah, well I can see that and there are so many So many careers that depend on evolution being a thing.
Evolutionary biologists, people who sort of assess human behavior based on how human traits have adjusted over time.
I mean, it's a mighty industry.
And as you know, it's hard to persuade somebody of something when his income, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Yeah, there's no doubt about that.
To give you a bit of my background, my dad was involved in mineralogy, you know, he'd been a miner and things like that, as well as having trained in a legal office, and so I always was interested in smashing rocks to see what was inside them.
And over the years, in doing that, here's the sort of thing, I hope you can see that very easily, the sort of thing that I found, this one here I found in Solnhofen in Germany.
Now, I knew what it was, I was the only Aussie on the dig that time, and when I brought it home to Australia, I went straight down the back and I got one!
Right?
This is an Australian plant found in the rocks of Germany.
This is the Australian plant still living here in Australia, one of our cycads.
Now one of the first things that made me begin to question evolution was the fact that evolution is supposed to be a process of simple to complex or change or variation over millions of years plus natural selection etc.
But when I looked at the rocks, cycads have always been cycads.
I could not find any evidence to the contrary, and even that great seller of ideas, Charles Darwin, right?
If you read his book, and I'd encourage all students to read that book, because in his chapter on geology he said, most assuredly, the fossils don't show evolution.
Now by the time I'd finished geology and then three years of genetics, I had discovered how true that was.
We used the evolution as the story to tie everything together.
But I did geology, and you asked the professor, what evidence proves evolution to you?
And he said, oh they've got that in organic chemistry.
So I did organic chemistry for three years, and I asked the professor, what evidence convinces you?
And he said, oh, they've got that in genetics.
So I went and did three years of genetics, and I discovered the professor, hey, what evidence convinces you?
Oh, they've got that in geology.
Zoom, zoom, zoom.
And they didn't.
Cycads had always turned into cycads.
They'd produced their own kind, And at this point, I became brave enough to say, I know a book with that sort of thing in it, and it's called the Bible, and it claims to be the truth, and I can't find anything that contradicts it.
You spent a lot of time, we'll come back to that point, you spent a lot of time in academe.
How did you survive?
Alright, number one, I saved any pennies that I had.
Number two, I married a lovely godly girl.
And she and I decided to split our time.
I'd study one year, she'd work, she'd study one year, I'd work.
So we sort of did that and in between I went to university at night school, right?
So we spread it out over quite a way and it was really interesting because most people, they do a solid geology degree.
And they know nothing else at all.
I thought, well, we geologists, we know dead things.
So I want to know how living things work.
So I went to do organic chemistry.
And then I thought, well, I know what the chemicals are, but that doesn't tell me how they pass down.
So I went and did genetics and got distinctions in genetics, and I discovered one thing.
The theory of evolution has no support in genetics.
The professor told us so.
It has no support in geology because he said talk to the organic chemist.
And the organic chemist, he couldn't have defended evolution if he tried.
If we want to make life in a test tube, we have to create it.
So creation is actually what scientists do all the time.
I've got to ask you, John, where are you on dinosaurs?
And I'm actually sitting beside a few of them at the moment.
Here's one that I found out in central Queensland, and there's lots of them out there, and this was in what I call a flood deposit.
There were millions of dinosaur bones, all tumbled together.
I've got, you know, bags full of them out in my storage shed out there.
When you take these to schools, kids love them, alright?
Here, play with this, because the bone is still bone, but all the hollows in it, well, you can see by the colour, it's sort of an orangey tint.
It's got iron in it, so it's as heavy as one thing, and when you give it to experts, like one of your experts from the British Museum, and say, what is it?
And he says, oh, that's the biggest dinosaur, that's Titanosaur!
And all of a sudden, the kids are really excited, right?
And when you have dinosaurs, and we look at the history of dinosaurs, the thing that really impresses me is that every dinosaur we've dug up has been dead.
It's not evolving, it's not doing anything.
You dig up its teeth, like these ones here, and you have no idea what it used them for.
All you can say is it's sharp teeth.
It's got serrations around the edge, but it's not doing anything.
Now, real science Depends on you being able to actually do repeatable experiments and to actually watch what a creature does before you make any prediction about where it's going to go.
So where do I stand on dinosaurs?
This is probably the best illustration.
Comes from England.
Got it off the South Coast.
The fishermen catch them in their nets all the time.
You know, your Jurassic Coast along there.
And they used to call them dragon bones.
The man who invented the British Museum system, Sir Richard Owen, as well as the name Dinosaur in 1841, he believed they were the monsters God made.
He was unashamed about it.
He called them Dragons too.
He wrote quite a few books.
Those of you who are in England listening, if you go to the Museum, go to the Dinosaur and Plesiosaur section and read the little labels that are still left there from the 1800s.
C. Dragon.
Dragons, what they call them, that's something made up by the Seventh Adventists in America.
This is what Richard Owen, the original geologist, called them.
Dragon, why?
Well, dragon, you have dragons in the Bible, there's no doubt about it, go look it up.
Draco is the Greek word.
And if you look at the latest dinosaur we've got, Dracorex, we still use it.
It's hidden away.
What you really call it was King of the Dragons.
And if you look at Chinese, they use all sorts of words.
And at the end of dinosaurs, they have the word dragon.
So it's not fairy tales.
I believe God created dinosaurs because, I mean, they're brilliantly done for what they do, even though they're not doing it at the moment.
They're just brilliant mechanisms like Lego blocks that are there in the soil, and they've been flooded in, they've been buried and drowned, and you can tell they've been drowned because if they find them whole, their neck is like that, their tail is like that, and the only way you can do that, as any expert will tell you, is taking your last breath just before you get buried in sediment and preserved.
They drowned.
Oh, OK.
Well that's, look, lots of my listeners will have been very amused at this point because I don't believe in dinosaurs.
I do believe in dragons.
I think there's loads of evidence that, look, you would not have The dragon in the Chinese Zodiac and other creatures we know, they all exist, but why would the Chinese have chucked in this random creature that never existed?
There's so much evidence, George and the Dragon, the art through the ages.
Dragons are a cultural thing.
They're so embedded in so many cultures, they cannot not have existed.
I firmly agree with that, having, I guess, one of my friends who's Vance Nelson wrote a book on dragons.
And when he became a student, used to be on drugs and like many students, he became a Christian, did a science degree, went to Bible college and said to me, what should I be doing?
I said, well, you go and you look for the evidence for yourself.
Go and dig it up.
Don't just read it in books.
Don't just ask professors.
Go and collect it yourself.
So he spent a fortune going around the world looking at dragons in culture, dragons in artwork, dragons in their relationship to the dinosaurs.
And like you, I prefer the name dragon.
And what that means, of course, is St.
George, well, perhaps he really was fighting something you and I would call a dinosaur, because Richard Owen certainly would have, right?
Then the man who invented the word dinosaur simply was using it as the scientific word for the old word dragon, and he used that for 20 years after he invented the word dinosaur.
But he's now out.
He used to be on the front section of the British Museum, and then they've replaced him with Charles Darwin.
You want to find Richard Owen?
He's back under the stairs near the cafe the last time I looked.
They've taken the creationists out of you, and they put the evolutionists, because evolution is the only thing that's allowed.
Now, did you catch what I said?
It's the only thing that's allowed.
I had students in Wales.
One of them came to me and said, I'm the best science student in the class, but my teacher said if I dare put creation in my answers, she will fail me.
And I've had this from university students.
I remember in Canada, one poor young man came to me and he said, I was in second year geology.
I was raised, I guess, naively in a brethren, you know, community, Plymouth brethren type, which are usually fairly cut off.
And he said, and my second year, I put my hand up and said, where does Noah's flood fit in this?
And the professor said, McDonald, if you're going to ask a stupid question like that, take an arts course.
You soon learn there are subjects you don't discuss and that's the worst sort of education.
The worst sort is what we're teaching students to today.
I'm with you there.
But so how would you go about persuading the presumably many viewers and listeners of this podcast that A, Darwin is bunk.
And B, creation is real.
Can you give me the kind of the TLDR?
Well, if you have 20 to 30 years of brainwashing, this is usually not a slow process.
It really does take, you've got to love the people you're dealing with because they're going to jump down your throat every chance they can get.
And you can say, Lord, just give me patience because he took a long time to work on me.
So basically, I will.
How do I explain this?
I had a lecturer, because I did a teaching degree as well, and I had a lecturer and he said the best educator he'd ever seen had been Jesus Christ.
So find out how he taught.
And one of the things he did was ask questions.
So instead of giving a lecture on the spot, he just asked the person the question.
And so I will simply say, OK, what does the word dinosaur mean?
And they'll say, big and fearful, creeping creature, something like that, right?
And then you grab one of these teeth, or one of these teeth.
I love visual aids, by the way, and giving rewards to kids in schools is a great way to do this.
And I say, OK, here we have a T-Rex tooth, right?
Now this is a cast, not an original, because they only found one with teeth this big.
That's from the dinosaur Sue.
Cost me quite a few hundred dollars in the beginning.
But you actually say, "Well, what's this creature supposed to eat?" And they'll say, "He's a killer." And you say, "Okay, how do we know?" And they don't know.
They've been told that.
I say, "Well, look at the bottom and you'll find he's got no roots to his teeth." And in fact, if you look up and down, you can probably see it's all fractured.
Every carnosaur tooth I've dug up has been hollow and it's been fractured.
And as Jack Horner, sorry, the Canadian guy, he did a big display in the Natural History Museum on what did T. rex eat.
And it was brilliant.
It was worth the £10 I had to pay to walk through it and see it.
And having lectured in Montana and some of those places where Horner digs and where I've had some of these people come to my meetings, what you'll find is when he had finished teaching you, you went through and said, well, I don't know what T-Rex ate at all, because if he went to chomp the head off an Allosaurus, then I'm afraid his teeth would have fell out.
No roots.
His teeth were smashed because they were hollow.
He couldn't see anything to chase it because he had round eyeballs.
He was short-sighted.
His leg muscles were massive.
And this is all on display in the British Museum, right?
Or Natural History Museum.
And a runner with big legs is a slow one.
And so away he went, and he basically was convinced that if T-Rex ever did eat meat, it was already dead.
And you have to work hard, and people in the end say, you know, I can follow that.
And it's a slow situation of saying, well, if that's wrong, what about this one over here?
What about some of these fossil fish?
Let me show you this one.
Beautiful, hey?
Now, I haven't met a person who can't tell me that's a fish.
In fact, I can even take them to the quarries in Wyoming where they can dig up some themselves.
These are commercial quarries.
It's not legal to go there.
You just have to pay for the right to do it.
But what they don't know is this guy here is actually one of the species that still lives in Australia.
We have Murray River Herring fossils in the USA.
We have them still living in Australia.
And then you say, all right, this is a fish.
How did it get there?
And they say, "Well, he died and got buried." No, no, no.
When fish die, they float.
This guy was buried whole.
If you have a dead fish floating, he will sink only when he's rotten.
So this guy was buried alive.
That's how we can recognize him so clearly.
Now, notice I haven't brought the Bible into anything yet, because God has given every one of us a brain, and God expects us to use it, particularly on politics, which I'm sure you get into sometimes, And most of us, they don't want us to use our brains in politics, on climate or anything like that.
And with fish, we are told the fishes lived, they died, they fell to the bottom.
It was in the British Natural History Museum the last time I went through and it's false.
This guy was buried alive, which is why he's so well preserved.
And even if you thought this rock was 40 million years old, he's in Australia.
He hasn't changed one bit.
Evolution is not true.
You don't need time to make a fossil fish.
You need rapid burial.
And that's what you need with all the fossils.
So there's two of the wickets that have been knocked over.
Only got one to go before the game's finished, right?
And so you then move slowly but surely to undermine their confidence in evolution.
Like we have a museum here.
We have one in England too.
For those of you who live near the border of Wales, we have one in Oswestry.
Beautiful place to go, open every Saturday.
But we have one here in Australia.
And basically we spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to get a fossil into Australia evenly It was even just a cast, right?
Just a cast of a dinosaur into Australia.
And it's one of these that today is presented as having feathers.
Now, the reason I wanted this cast is that this was a cast of the original one found yonks ago.
Right now, when I say yonks ago, I mean back in the 1930s, before dinosaurs were supposed to have feathers, right?
And so when you have a look at this cast, the whole original skeleton is there, not a single feather on it.
But I also imported another one from England, the first one comes from America, the second one comes from England, and on it was some feathers.
And we contacted your best caster, who does the work for the museums, and said, why did you put feathers on?
Is that what you found on the skeleton?
No, there are no feathers there, but that's what the museums want.
Now, when you actually look at these two side-by-sides and you say, well, hang on, here's what we had before feathers were supposed to be there.
Here's what we have after feathers are supposed to be there.
Are you being told the truth?
Now, again, notice I haven't bought a Bible reference or anything, but we're getting closer because truth actually is a biblical concept.
There is no truth in evolution at all.
It doesn't matter.
If your brain evolved by accident, You don't even know what you're thinking.
You don't even think if you know anything, right?
So, therefore, even thinking about truth and error involves a philosophy, and they're so far away from truth, they haven't got a clue about that.
So, I'll end up taking them there, and it's fascinating to do with it, students, because, in fact, I'll divert one thing to New Zealand.
Because the group called Navigators, which was a Christian group, invited me to do a week's lectures in Christchurch University.
And I said, it'd be pretty tough, there's some pretty smart students there, and there certainly were.
And my technique is, I didn't do the Bible study the first day, I didn't promote creation, I just undermined evolution gently at first, then more subtly, then finally, bang, at the end, right?
And at the end of that lecture, one of the students came and said, Up until today, I didn't even know there was a God.
White, Anglo-Saxon, 23 years of age.
Now, the funny thing is, I haven't mentioned God.
I just undermined evolution, and what she did was, if evolution is not true, there has to be a God.
This seems to be a natural progression of thinking that's actually inside it.
I'm sure the Bible calls it the conscience that God put in us to tell us this, and she'd realized there was a God.
And I went on to further during that week to actually ask her, do you want to know this God?
How would you like to know this God?
And I'll tell you what, it led to a point where she became a Christian.
But it started out with a lecture that didn't have a single Bible verse in it.
All it did was, well, what does the Bible say?
The heavens declare the glory of God and you know it and you understand it.
You can see it.
We all can.
And yet we look outside and say, oh, those stars, aren't they so far away and aren't we so little?
We can't be a God.
And we know that's wrong, but we just refuse to admit it.
Yeah.
Actually, this is a digression and it's quite naughty of me, but do you believe in space?
Do I believe in space?
Space.
Outer space.
Oh, outer space.
I certainly believe in inner space.
That's what we are.
We have an external boundary and we even extend beyond that boundary because you know and I know that there are many people The minute they try to get beyond a certain distance to you, you back away.
Something tells you they've invaded your personal space, so you actually go out somehow, and nobody's got a good explanation of this, and I certainly don't, but I know it's real.
They've got to get to there, and that's as far as I really want them to go, unless it's my wife who loves me and I really want her to snuggle up inside that personal space.
Now, we go one step further, and we certainly have physical Space, we've flown around in it, right?
I mean, we've got aeroplanes ever since the Wright Brothers, and so we've now got the big Boeings, and we've got all of these things, and we can go right up to the edge of what we call space.
Now, when you say space, if you mean a total absence of everything, so far we haven't found there's a total absence, right?
As far as we go out from Earth, we will find molecules and things like that.
As to how far that goes, I'm always reminded of a Bible verse at this point, the heavens declare the glory of God, and it talks about God's nature being seen in creation.
When someone says, how big is God?
I say, how big is space?
There's no answer to that, right?
And so God is bigger than the space that He's actually created, but we don't have a good definition of it because our definitions depend on things being in it.
Right, and yet you find a space that we're in, the Earth is in, the Sun is in, but much harder to find than just that personal space we started with.
It's quite interesting, you're quoting the beginning of Psalm 19, which is what Vannevar Brown has got on his tombstone.
And he was giving us a clue, I think.
Yeah, that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
And it goes on about the Sun coming forth like a bridegroom out of his chamber.
It's one of my favorites because I think it gives clues as to the real shape of the planet and how it all works.
Anyway, back to geology.
Tell me about, because most geologists, and I think this is probably what John Lyall was responsible for this?
Charles Lyall.
Sorry, Charles Lyall.
He was what?
He was at the end of the 19th century, something like that?
Yes.
Just before Charles Darwin.
Oh, sorry.
So earlier, sorry, okay.
So Charles Lyall and Charles Darwin were a sort of tag team.
And they were sort of promoting two aspects of this theory which changed our understanding of our relationship to what you and I would recognize now as creation.
But since then, lots of geologists think that the Earth is, what, four and a half billion years old?
Tell us how that came about.
What did people think before then?
Okay, come from two directions.
I remember when I'd become a Christian and I was struggling with this because our professor of geology was the head of a theology department and I've discovered that this has been a common thread all through the history of geology.
The word geology was invented by the Bishop of Durham and they're proud of it.
In the 1300s, it's on their town website in the UK.
So there's been a connection between the church and geology forever and ever and a day until you get past Charles Darwin.
Right now, you find Charles Lyell, he was a lawyer, not a geologist.
You find Charles Darwin, he trained in theology, not science.
So there's an interesting history here.
How did we get from the starting connection, which was so firm, Okay, a little bit of history.
floating away till finally theology is up there regarded as abstract nonsense and science is the real thing.
And that's what you must refer to for climate or for diet or for sickness or anything like that.
Okay, a little bit of history.
Let's start with the French because when you have a look at the French Revolution, their aim was to push God out of everything, right?
And so you have the Republic, you have Napoleon shutting the churches, you have the Liberty, Fraternity, Equality, etc., the Trinity of Paganism, which becomes dominant in their mind, and God is locked out of their thinking.
OK, now the English were worried about the French Revolution, but if the English said something, the Scots rejected it.
It's just the way we are.
And they accepted what the French said.
So you find the concept of the age being older than the Bible sneaking in from France through Scotland.
So a couple of the geologists in Scotland begin to say there is no sign of beginning, no sign of end, because all we can deal with is what we've got in the present.
Now, because the Scots barely spoke English that the English recognised, this made not much headway until the days of Charles Lyell.
Right, when Charles Lyell, who also came from Scotland, he actually bought these ideas into England And his religious attitude was, the church is out, liberty, fraternity, equality, etc.
We want to get rid of God.
And he's famous for his statement, not that he put this in his books, but his sister wrote it after he had died as his attitude.
Quote, my aim is to free science from Moses.
Now, if only they'd told me that in second or third year geology, it would have made my understanding so much easier as to what the conflict was happening.
How did Lyell do this?
Well, if you have no start and you have no beginning, all you've got is now.
Right?
You can't refer to God, you can't refer to the Bible, there's no authority outside of present-day science.
In fact, I was doing a debate against a professor of geology in Tasmania, and he got up for his chance and he said, we geologists recognize no authority, right?
No Bible, no church, no nothing.
So I simply got up and I said, and on whose authority do you say that?
And all of a sudden the argument fell to pieces totally because he was making himself the authority just like Charles Lael was.
But Charles Lael actually knew as a lawyer what he needed to do.
If you want to get rid of the real authority in England, Queen Victoria's authority, the Church, The History's Authority is the Church, then you have to get rid of the book it's founded on, the Bible.
Don't start with Jesus.
He's a nice guy.
He died for us, right?
Don't worry about that.
Let's attack the Flood, the God of Judgment.
Let's attack Creation.
Let's get rid of Moses.
So, his aim in the rest of his life was to get rid of Moses, and he did it by saying, all we can do is study the present.
We can study rocks forming, we can study the air, we can study, and that's all we're allowed to use.
So today if you say, but the evidence shows there was red sand on the bottom of the Red Sea that matches Abraham's drought, it'll be dismissed because Abraham is in the Bible, so you're not allowed to refer to that.
Even though there is the red sand on the bottom from the big drought in Abraham's day, they will laugh at you.
So Charles Lyell Force people to have a paradigm, a way of thinking, a view of the world, which excluded God every time.
Hence that bright student in Wales, I'm not allowed to have heard of creation.
Hence the student in Canada, don't ask such stupid questions.
So Charles Lale was responsible for removing the whole authority for Victorian England, which ultimately was not the Queen, it was God.
So you begin to remove God, and you begin to remove Moses.
Now, notice Lael is not attacking the Quran.
Lael mentions the Quran sometimes, but he's not attacking the Quran.
It's no problem for him, because their God is not the God of Moses.
Their God is not the God of the Ten Commandments.
So what you find is, in removing Moses, he then gets a student.
The student's name is Charles Darwin.
Charles Darwin adopts Lyell's attitude.
Trained in theology, he knew what the Bible said, God made things after their own kind.
Do you know that Charles Darwin wrote his book deliberately to undermine Christianity?
Because as a theological student for the Anglican Church, he knew that he couldn't write a book called Origin of Kinds.
So he wrote Origin of Species, a far more tenuous definition.
And so he could say black cows turn into white cows, pigs turn into big pigs or little pigs, different species, therefore people have come from apes.
Huge jump of imagination.
But he did this because, I don't need to consider Moses anymore.
And Charles Darwin and Charles Lael, by the end of their lives, were telling their friends, here's what you need to do to attack Christianity.
I know the Anglican Church puts Charles Darwin up there and they should actually put him outside of Westminster, bury him at the bottom of the churchyard, because he's their biggest enemy.
But he's standing on the shoulders of Charles Lael.
Who was standing on the French revolutionaries back in the 1700s.
So there's the bit of the sequence.
So it comes up to John Mackay, the creation guy here in Australia.
And when I first started talking about this, people said you're trying to bring religion into science.
And I said, no, this is not a fight between religion and science.
This is a fight between whether it's true or whether it's false.
So if psych ads have always turned into psych ads, if you actually find Trees like this, tree ferns, this comes from our Jurassic rocks out here.
And you know it's a tree fern because tree ferns are still here.
And this is true for every fossil you dig up.
Then what's wrong with me saying they produce their own kind?
Because that's what the tree, I mean, that's the world you live in.
People don't have dogs.
Dogs don't have kittens.
It sounds so naive.
And people say, oh, you bring religion into science.
No.
We are having a conflict between is it true or is it false?
Is it right?
Is it wrong?
It's truth versus error, not religion versus science.
So that's why I encourage all your listeners to actually make their stand over that issue, not over Christianity versus, you know, Paganism versus whatever.
I've learned so much there, John.
I didn't know, for example, that his name was pronounced Lyle.
There's a big clue in the first syllable.
Yeah, that's right.
So why was he... because these people must have had backers.
Why was Lyell taken... if he was just some sort of random lawyer in Scotland, why has he become such a big cheese in the world of geology?
Okay, now I'm sure you are very aware of how strict Victorian England was.
Publicly.
Not privately.
You too can go to Hampstead Palace or whatever and see the pornography that the royalties actually exposed themselves day by day in the bedrooms they slept in.
So there was a huge double standard in England and the morality was strict and imposed.
Now if there's one thing most of the British wanted to get rid of was let's get rid of that strict Victorian mentality, the rigidness of it, and neither you nor I like having rigid rules imposed that we can't even question.
Now you'll find that's true of evolutionists just as it is true of the legalist in morality.
So, Charles Lyell comes from Scotland.
Scotland, by the way, is where my dad comes from, right?
Now, if you want to know why he rejected Christianity, it was because of the grey, dull strictness of most of the churches.
Believed in Christianity?
No.
They had all the rules.
Thou shalt not do this.
Thou shalt not do that.
Thou shalt not do something else.
And when you have rules without Christ, I'm sorry, you have law without love.
And it doesn't help anybody.
So Charles Lael comes from a grey Scotland with a very Calvinistic, strong background.
Some good points, a lot of philosophy and law and all of that which became his occupation.
But when he comes to England, he comes to an England where they deal with a morality which he sees as totally based on the Law of Moses, and he was right.
It was the law without love, though, right?
You just judge people and condemn them.
You send them to Australia.
That's how most of us got out here, right?
Free of charge, no return ticket.
And what you find is he, as a lawyer, could see the logic of where this came from.
So instead of attacking it up here, he attacked it right at the bottom.
And all of a sudden, the inner circle of thinkers Now, do a little bit of study on the background of the science thinkers in the early 1800s.
They form a club.
They're wealthy.
They're independent.
Charles Darwin did not care whether you liked his book or not.
He had enough money to print it regardless of what you thought.
Charles Layer was wealthy and independent.
So were all of these other guys, and they were wealthy enough as a team to take a stand against Victorian morality, and Victorian morality was so unpopular All of a sudden, the claps are on Lael's side, particularly in the academic side, and that's why you find Charles Lael and the others beginning to get to the top.
When you have a look at the Societies for Science, their whole purpose was not really the promotion of science, it was the promotion of a God-free, Moses-free science, right?
And they realized that by doing that, ultimately, They would destroy the King and Queen of England.
I'm not wishing to be too political, but if you have a look at the authority that Charles has currently got, compare it to Victoria, compare it to the Kings and Queens beforehand, it's been diminishing, diminishing, diminishing.
What's Charles?
Defender of the Faiths?
I can't imagine a King and Queen of England actually even accepting that title a few years back, right?
So what you find is the whole system has been undermined to the point where you can be gay, you can be green, you can be whatever you want, you don't have to justify it at all, and Lyell is right at the background of that, and he wanted an England where you could be free to do what you wanted to, not to do what was right, but to do what you thought might be right, regardless of what the God who created said so.
Just on a quick point of detail there, actually King Charles, as we must learn to call him, it's quite awkward, actually was all behind the defender of faiths thing.
He always wanted to be a king of multiple faiths.
He bought into all that kind of woke bollocks.
That's been made abundantly clear to us here in Australia.
But, back to your point about Lyell, even now, even though I'm kind of sympathetic to your arguments, I still find it difficult to look at a rock, or rocks, without thinking, those are really, really old.
They're billions of years.
Have I disappeared?
No, I can hear you half the time, James.
Go ahead.
Hang on.
Let me just see whether, yeah.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, much better.
Okay.
Even though I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you say, Well, all of it, actually.
Apart from maybe a few details about dinosaurs.
I still find it, even now, very hard to look at a rock, or at a rock formation, without thinking, that's billions of years old, it was shaped by these massive movements over time.
Is that just because I've had it ingrained in me with rudimentary geological education, or what?
Basically with myself, having grown up outside the church, having sort of been at a state education, programmed with evolution as soon as you hit upper grades or high school, whatever, millions of years was in my head.
And it stayed there for quite a long time until I reached the point of saying, well, I don't know, because I've actually seen certain things happen in my life.
The house that my wife and I have now, the rocks that it sits on, have changed age three times in my life!
Right.
It went from having no fossils.
This is the basement rock around here.
So they said this must be pre-Cambrian.
Cambrian comes from Kimberley and Wales, which is where it was first studied.
No fossils, no fossils, same sort of terminology.
And then they found a bit of a fossil on the north side.
And so all of a sudden, the rocks on all around Brisbane moved up a couple of hundred million years.
And then a student while I was studying, Actually found a fragment of a crinoid coming out of volcanic rock from sediment underneath, and all of a sudden there's a new paper.
It's changed age by another hundred million years.
And then an older Christian gentleman, I'm grateful for these older guys who are brave enough to challenge younger students like me, he said, John, I'll set you an assignment.
He said, why don't you get all the books on geology and Start in the 1800s and work out what the age of the rocks were from the author's point of view.
And he said, you'll probably find what I found.
The age of the Earth doubles every 20 years.
Right now, basically, I went and did exactly that, and any one of your listeners can do exactly that, and that's exactly what you will find.
The age of the rocks my house is on have increased, you know, they've got younger and younger.
Some of the rocks in Australia have got older and older.
These turn out not to be facts at all.
So when students ask me, well, how long did it take to get here?
I said, well, work from what you know, not from what you don't know.
Now James, you don't even look as old as me.
In fact, the web says you're about 58, 59.
I've been on this planet for 77 years.
I'm beginning to wear out and fade, right?
And so what you find is, when it comes to time, most of us have no appreciation of it beyond 120 years.
I've come across one person who was 120, but most of us are dead before we're 80.
Many of us are pleased to go with the current political situation as it is.
So work with what you do know.
And the answer is, when you have a look at things like this, It's a fossil fish.
We used it before, so this will reinforce it.
And you go looking for fishes like this, and start with an aquarium, or start with the fish markets where you buy your fish.
If you start with the aquarium, most people know that when a fish dies, it floats to the top.
And then the other fishes start to eat it.
So by the time it gets to the bottom where it sits because you've got no sediment coming in, it'll be gone really, really quickly.
In fact, we verified that with a fish farmer.
He grows fish for a living.
And I said, "How long does it take for your fish to disappear?" He said, "Well, they may not get eaten at the top of the pond because we feed the fish so well." He said but what we find is they die and finally they will sink to the bottom when they start their air bladder sort of bursts etc sink to the bottom and he said within a day a fungus comes from we don't know where and it grows all over them and they are totally disintegrated within a couple of days.
So if you know that about fish you have no option.
That fish is so beautifully preserved only because it happened quickly.
Now, this turns out to be true for all of the fossils that we know.
Let me give you a look at this one.
There's one of my favorite trilobites.
Word invented in 1741 by a creationist.
He didn't know what it was, but he said it's got one, two, three segments.
One, two, three segments.
Tri-lobe-ite.
We now know a lot more about it.
Of course, you can cut it open, find its legs, etc.
It's in the arthropod group, but they currently seem to be extinct.
And when you have a look at our trilobite, you'll notice his back end is sort of curved up.
In fact, we have all of these from that stage right through.
I'll show you they're the same trilobite, right?
Same trial or what?
This one is rolled up, because like the present day, you know the little isopods or roly-polies they sometimes get called, you touch them in the forest and they roll up in fright and present you with their heart outside.
That's what this guy did.
Now, my experience with things like roly-polies is they'll do that instantly, and then they'll wait listening until they think you've gone, then they'll open up again.
So if you find, and I've got hundreds and hundreds of trialer boats in my collection like this, The only way that can happen is if that was frightened, it rolled up and it was buried quickly in the mud that turned out to be too deep for it to escape through.
What do I mean too deep?
There's a marvellous display in one of the museums in England of fossil worms.
Now I know fossil worms don't represent the most brilliant visual look, but the display is all about how come you can fossilise a worm?
It's used to crawling around in the mud.
It's used to being buried because the tide comes in, the tide goes out, it lives buried.
How come it can be a fossil?
And what they've discovered is that if you quickly cover a worm up, then if it's going to escape, it has to get out of the mud to a level where it's still shallow enough for it to sort of not be squashed or anything like that.
So how long do you have to make a fossil worm?
Well, how deep do you have to bury a worm so it can't get out?
And we know the answer is not one metre, because they can squiggle up through one metre.
Not two metres, they can squiggle up through two metres.
Three metres, ten feet roughly, they can squiggle up through that, but they're almost out of energy from pushing against the burial, and they're almost out of, I mean, shells do this too.
And if you get just over three metres and a couple of centimetres, that's it, they'll never make it to the outside.
So what you find is to form a fossil worm, you have to bury it really rapidly.
The same is true for seashells.
I mean, I got these from up near our famous or infamous dingo fence.
You see this nice shell?
I'll hold it up as close as I can to the camera.
Right.
Notice it's shut.
Now, any fisherman will tell you, hey, that was buried alive.
Because when shells die, they open up.
This is the lamellibranch type shells, the ones that you're used to eating.
I found these ones on the beach of Scotland at Oban.
And by the way, since I know you're interested in climate change, if you want to go up to Oban, you can see the castle that used to be surrounded by the sea.
That was its defenses.
Now it's 20 foot above the sea.
So the whole west of Scotland is rising up.
And this is way before they talked about the sea level sinking or rising or whatever.
So when you look at this, these scallop shells automatically shut when they are buried.
They will open up when they are alive, but when they're buried, if they shut, from then on, they never open up again.
So what you find is if you ask, if we start from what we know, then the only way you can preserve Well, what have we got in Wyoming?
Millions of fish per square kilometre.
That's why we sell them to students for $10, $15, even bring them all the way back from the quarries in Wyoming.
There are millions of them.
The same is true for the fossils that I've got in Germany.
You actually have commercial sites.
They'll let you in to dig up fossils, and they find dinosaurs.
I even found some fossilised What do you call it?
Crocodile?
No, it was alligator.
Alligator spew.
He'd sicced up because he was being squashed, and the food was out of his stomach, and there was a big pile of crocodile vomit.
One of my most famous fossils is a fish that's vomiting, and the vomit hasn't got very far.
Go from the known to the unknown, we can see fish vomit.
You can see the vomit come out, and then it disappears real fast.
So, if you go from the known to the unknown, how do you form all these fossils?
Your only choice is quickly, not slowly.
So, there's where you need to start and say, if I've got fossils formed fast here, here, here and here, all the way up the Grand Canyon, then the rocks form quickly, not slowly.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have any fossils.
So, as I love to say, slow fossils means no fossils.
I'm just going to let the cut-in through the window.
Just give me one second.
That's all right.
Okay.
Sorry about that.
I didn't want the cat sort of annoying me.
So what this means presumably is that all the different layers of fossils are the result of what sort of sudden floods or sudden incidents where the earth where like over three meters of earth suddenly cascaded down.
So what caused that?
OK, you will.
Your basic logic is right.
And the question is, how many times in Earth's history would we have had sudden catastrophic events?
Now, I use the term catastrophic in the original big sense, so that here we have an ordered system where there's no erosional damage or whatever.
Then we have something which shifts a pile of earth, shifts a pile of rock, and puts it somewhere else.
Now, that is catastrophic, shifting, destruction, redumping, etc.
Now, because I anticipated you'd bring this question, you can verify you never even told me what we're going to talk about.
and there's a set of layered rocks from a coal field nearby here.
I have huge specimens but they're too big to put on screen because they'd hide me and you wouldn't see what they are.
But all coal seams are like that, layer upon layer upon layer, and within them The plants are so well preserved because they're all there and they'll turn to coal because the carbon content hasn't been degraded somehow.
The fossil fish beds, you can tell how quickly they were formed because some of them still smell.
The dead fish smell is in it.
So, to get back to your question.
Here's what the first geologist did.
Now, I hope your listeners don't mind a little bit of history, but knowing where we come from tells us how we got here, which helps us decide where to go to.
I mean, the ancient Greeks, if you don't know where you come from, you really don't know where you're going.
Right?
So, you will find that's a really useful situation to keep things in mind.
The first geologist said, okay, what are fossils?
The ancient Greeks, who believed in multiple gods, said fossils are tricks played on us by the gods that deceive us.
Why would they believe that?
Their gods could play tricks.
If you could get drunk, they could get drunker.
Right?
So Zeus, on a real bender, he would lose his mind and play all sorts of weird and wonderful tricks.
So if you couldn't trust the gods, you couldn't trust the Earth.
Now, along comes Martin Luther.
Yep, it sounds like I'm bringing religion in.
I'm bringing history in.
And Martin Luther writes a thesis both on evolution, because evolution was an issue even to the ancient Greeks and Romans.
So he had to write why you couldn't believe in evolution.
And he also is one of the first to write on coal.
Because his dad and he had worked in association with coal mines.
And so he begins to say he suspected these things come from Noah's flood because the wood hasn't degraded.
It's so well preserved, etc.
So if you want to check me out, read Luther's commentary on Genesis, because they didn't see science and religion as separate things.
You just told the truth.
Put it all in together there.
OK, so Luther comes on.
Then you find people like The guys who invent the classification of... I can't find... There it is, there I think.
No, that's not it.
What were the first shell?
The Arca shell.
The guy who invents the classification system, he looks at this shell and he says, that shell is the same all around the planet.
And it looks like Noah's Ark, so it's called the Arkashel.
And he invented our classification system based on his confidence that Martin Luther was right, that God has actually revealed the truth.
You catch that?
So, the whole essence of the Reformation is, no longer do we have the Catholic authorities telling you what to think, you are free to read and find out for yourself, and I'd suggest you start in God's Word, because it always claims, and the Lord said.
It doesn't say, Moses sat on Mount Sinai pondering for 40 days and 40 nights what religious philosophy to give this bunch of whinging Jews, right?
And so what you find is, they started with that presupposition, assumption, call it what you like, but that's where they started.
As a result of believing that animals were created to produce their own kind, if it looks like a cycad, it's probably a cycad.
If it looks like a shark's tooth, It's probably a shark's tooth.
So Carl von Linn and some of these others came up with what we call our classification system.
Except they soon realized sharks used to be monsters, now they're midgets.
Quite the opposite of evolution by the way, but easily to recognize, and as hard as it sounds for us to believe, they wrote books like this.
Nicholas Steno wrote a book that thick on how do we know it's actually a shark's tooth and not a trick played by the gods.
Now forgive me for the little history lesson here, but without this you can't see where things have come from.
So they gained an assurance that because their god was a god of order and he'd created, that order would show in creation.
Kind.
God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
So cycads always turn into cycads.
There's the connecting dots that go in there.
You go one step further and you start beginning to look at how did the fossils get there?
Because the ancient Greeks had no idea except to say, they're jokes, they're tricks played by the gods.
And along comes Martin Luther and says, no, they're probably the evidence of Noah's flood, or wrap the burial in God's history.
All right, what's God's history?
He said, on the first day he made the heavens and the earth, and the earth is covered with water.
And God said, let there be light, and there was light.
No life, no plants, no nothing.
No rain, no nothing.
And so what you find is, on the second day, he separates the waters below from the waters above, and on the third day, he raises up the dry land.
And as I like to tell people, on that third day, as God lifted up the land, the one thing I've learned about water, and I learned this as a kid, because I used to have one of those little bows where you had a little rubber thing, and then you licked it, and you shot it at the wall, and your mum said not to do it, because when you pulled it off, the paint came off with it.
The one thing I've learned about water is it doesn't erode by pushing, it erodes by pulling.
So if you push rock or anything like that up from underneath the water where it would have been, the water running off the side will tear the rock to pieces, and I mean literally tear it to pieces, and all of a sudden you'll have layers of sediment.
Sediment just means sat down, it's dropped down, and it will have no fossils in it.
So the first geologist began to say the first rock state from the time of creation, but they were fossil free.
And the first time you get fossils is when you have soil and plants and animals and rain, because the first event of rain Today is Noah's Flood, and I kid you not, read the first geologists, read what they had to say.
It's absolutely unpopular today, and you are kicked in the teeth if you dare to suggest it.
But in reality, this is how they got to setting up museums.
The whole museum movement was motivated by a biblical effort.
Look at the general plan for the British Natural History Museum, a showplace of all of God's creatures, all of His creation.
That was its agenda.
Okay, so when you go one step further, the first rain, the first erosion.
The first erosion, the first mud.
The first mud, the first fossils.
But when you think about it, the rain's coming down, it hits the land.
Even if there's no mountains, it's going to go gravitationally in one direction, which is why I showed you this.
Most people think the totally wrong way because of how you've been trained in primary school.
They give you a glass of water, that's if they trust you, and you put mud and sand and rocks in it, you shake it up and down says the teacher, let it sit, and all of a sudden you've got rocks at the bottom, sand in the middle, and mud at the top.
Which is a wonderful experiment, except you see the world is not a glass of water.
When the teacher says that's how sediments form, that would only be true if the water is going up and down.
But the water in the real world is actually going sideways.
So when you look at these layers here, in fact if you go to our website creationresearch.net, click on the Research button, look up Strata Machine, and you will see a machine which we didn't invent, we just copied, right?
It's been around for maybe 200 years, modified, improved.
Ours is the best one, by the way.
Don't like to boast, but it's really great.
And you will see sediment coming in one side and within a blink of your eye.
The heavy sediment and the light sediment is actually separating out in layers sideways.
Now, I was motivated to do this because, bless my old geology professor, he walked into the room one day and he said, Chaps, I've got some bad news for you.
The Grand Canyon layers form sideways.
What?
Not one on top of the other?
Grand Canyon layers form sideways.
He never said another word about that until I left university, but I've been to the Grand Canyon many times, and he's absolutely right.
You can trace them from the east, from Tennessee, to the west, they form sideways.
You can trace them from the north, down to the south, and they form sideways.
And if you have a look at our strata machine, The rocks form sideways, and I'm sure you can see the dark layers and the light layers in here.
If you look at our strata machine on creationresearch.net, you will see a most amazing phenomena, and that is we put deliberately two sorts of rocks in there, a very heavy one and a very light one, black rutile sand and white quartz sand, vastly difference in weight.
You mix them all up, pump them through the machine, and they come out totally mixed up.
And then, within a fraction of a second, they are beginning to separate.
Why?
Because the black one is heavy, the white one is light, and so the white one starts getting ahead of the black one.
And so, what you find is, as they are forming, the white one goes ahead, and the black one forms on top of it.
So, when you're looking at it, surprise, surprise, the bottom layer is not the heavy one, the bottom layer is the lightest one.
Now, I'll tell you what, I gave a lecture on this at a university and the lecturer said, Huh?
Ridiculous!
But it's true!
You can do it yourself!
Right?
And so all of the things we are taught about sedimentology in the laboratory are usually wrong unless they do something you can run a check.
And I sat in I know this sounds weird, but I sit in the banks of floods watching what the layers do.
I had a big flood in Washington State, and in three days, 400 layers formed.
I watched them.
It was painful.
It was full of mosquitoes.
It was rough.
My bottom felt like it had rocks in it, which it probably did.
But I watched 400 layers, dark light, dark light, coming down the mountains from the coalfields, resorting, and they sorted like that.
They didn't take millions of years.
They formed a strata layer about one and a half meters thick that had 400 layers in it in three days.
I sat in the basin there at Nova Scotia, and I watched the water come in and out.
And every time the tide would come in, it would form layers, but it did it the way the strata machine did.
The heaviest layer was on the top, the lightest layer was underneath.
So again, you need to deal with what the real world is, so don't be surprised.
I'm an ardent advocate of the first sediment was formed on the third day of creation, and it would have involved absolutely fossil-free stuff.
The next lot of sediment would have been catastrophic and global, and it's why you find so many animals and plants separated into it, and they're all sorted out according to the density of the strata, and they form sideways.
And they've got some amazing combinations.
Let me show you one that will shock most of you.
You see that?
Yep, you're right, I feel that.
Yes, a rose.
Do you recognise that?
Is that a rose?
What's it look like?
It's a pile of thorns, isn't it?
Hey, you're pretty good with your flowers.
But the interesting thing is, I also found it just below this fossil.
Do you see that baby dinosaur footprint?
Oh yes, I see that.
I'll hold it up again.
Whoops, there we are.
Can you see that?
Yeah.
Okay.
There's the thorns.
There is the dinosaur footprint.
And yet the interesting thing is, when you look at the history of the world, you're not supposed to have fossil thorns until you get plants like roses.
Yeah?
And so what you find is those fossil thorns are incredible, and you've never seen them on display in a museum at all, and I'm not the first to find them.
You find them all up and down the East Coast.
You find them all through Nova Scotia.
We've known about them for 150 years.
Why haven't you seen fossil thorns In museums, the answer is Lyell wants to get rid of Moses, and Moses, as the co-editor of Genesis, because God dictated much of it, what you find is he's got a record that says God cursed the ground with thorns only after man and all the animals were here.
So don't be surprised that if you're going to find dinosaurs, you'll also find thorns because those strata did not form until after man and the animals were here.
So I am very unpopular for telling people, come to our museum, look at our fossil thorns.
They are real and you need to ask why you don't see them in museums.
They've all got them in their basements.
Most people haven't been to the basement of the Natural History Museum.
I have.
And I tell you what, the display down there is far better than what they've got up the top.
Museums used to be junkyards of displays.
They changed that so they could charge you more money to come into these special displays.
But you look what they've got downstairs.
They know all this sort of stuff, but only what goes on display to reinforce, in fact, to be honest with you, to put it in a good summary point at the end here, the museums had a policy meeting over the past 30 years or so, and they changed their whole attitude.
They used to put evidence on display.
Now their attitude is, put the evidence on the display that reinforces the current paradigm.
Millions of years, evolution, not the Bible, get rid of Moses.
So don't be surprised you don't see any flood evidence in most museums.
And I don't want to sound sarcastic, but a current example.
Our guy in England who's doing his PhD, he actually found fossil logs in a sedimentary deposit.
And I went there and I supervised it.
I checked what he was doing.
He certainly found fossil logs mixed up with seashells and that.
And then he was with a professor and they were doing a field trip.
And he said to the professor, who is all about how this is a marine deposit, he said, well, what about the fossil logs?
And the professor said, what fossil logs?
He said, well, they're all here.
And the guy said, well, I did my doctorate on this.
There's no fossil logs here.
And so he took the professor and showed him there's heaps of logs there.
I've been there.
In fact, he said they used to be on display in the museum in Oxford.
No, sorry, Cambridge, if I remember correctly.
And he'd been there and seen it.
And by the time they got back to Oxford, the evidence had disappeared.
And the professor still does not mention logs, even though I can take you to that beach in eastern Norfolk and I can show you logs mixed up with shells.
So this is a mixed flood deposit.
I hope I'm sort of getting the point across without sounding too fanatical or enthusiastic there, James.
No, but you've raised so many questions.
I mean, I'm fascinated by the...
Like most people, I would have imagined that the heavy sediment would be the one at the bottom.
But, various questions I wanted to ask you.
So, these catastrophic events, how often do they happen?
Okay.
That's a harder question to answer.
I'll give you a couple of illustrations.
If you go to the southern part of the USA, there's what they call a fossil forest.
Now most fossil forests, I'm not talking about the main one in Arizona, I'm talking right down near the Gulf, right?
Most fossil forests are really log dumps.
And this one is a very distinct log dump where you get loose sandy soil which provably, you can prove it, came from way up north.
It's come down with the water, it's plumbed, it's bashed forest to pieces and shifted everything and dumped it down there and then the water's disappeared probably into the Gulf.
Maybe more logs out there, I don't know.
But when you look at that, that flood deposit, because that's what it is, was probably generated by the burst of a big ice dam.
You know the thing called the Ice Age?
You had a lot of ice up in Canada and then these ice dams were formed as a residue of that.
Then as the walls melt, the water takes off as a huge current all the way down from The Canadian border, it basically would run all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico.
And so you end up with collecting whatever it comes and dumping it.
Now that's one sort of catastrophe.
We have those occasionally when you get earthquakes.
So your most famous one is when there was an earthquake on the, what's your, one of your main rivers there up through the middle problem, Mississippi I think it is, and the river was tipped up and ran backwards.
And now there's a lake there which is still left over when all that water was dumped on it.
Now that's a minor one compared to the ice lake there.
You also have other ones.
The Grand Canyon was probably formed again by the collapse of a ice lake or a flood lake left over that ran off and eroded out all of that stuff so quickly it's not at the other end waiting for us to find it.
There's a big hole.
But you'll find there's even more catastrophic evidence when you look at the rocks that stretch from Tennessee all the way across to the Grand Canyon.
And we know they came from Tennessee because the hard rocks in Tennessee have the lovely crystals in that we found in the sandstone in the Grand Canyon entombed in the rock.
So we know where it came from.
Now that's a whack of a distance to actually think, okay, this little crystal traveled all the way.
You try and travel a little crystal, you know, over that distance and it wears out before it gets there unless it's being catastrophically carried real fast, right?
So you find catastrophes at the level of the whole world being lifted up.
Fortunately, you don't see that today.
You have little ones where you get, you know, just tsunamis and that.
Secondly, you have them at the earthquake level, which are usually associated with tsunamis, whether it's in New Zealand or in Mississippi or places like that.
Again, not much evidence left over and it soon disappears.
You have bigger ones with ice lake dams that can, I mean, there's some huge ice lake residues in Canada still.
When they collapse, they'll produce beds over counties.
Right, and we can go and see them today, and then you have to say, well if that comes from an ice lake collapse, how much water was involved in forming this bed, which basically, well go and look at the red-green layers that are in the Grand Canyon and that, and you can trace them all over the globe.
Including to Australia.
So some of them are mega-scale in terms of global.
So that's the sort of catastrophic levels you have to deal with.
But in every case, you'll find fossils only when the creatures were buried, and they won't be buried in Charles Darwin's order.
That's why, as I said at the start, in his book on geology, he says, most assuredly, the fossils do not show evolution.
They don't.
They never have.
They don't do it now.
Go and check yourself if you're really interested in what's truth.
Of course, I would encourage you to find out what the truth about religion is as well, as well as the truth about science.
And it's truth versus error, not religion versus science.
The flood was the last sort of universal flooding event, presumably, Noah's Flood.
It certainly seemed to be that way, but to subdivide it, think carefully, there's no rain up until Noah's Flood.
We can't skip that point, right?
That's what the Bible says, that Noah's Flood was the first rain.
Now, in Australia, we know what it's like to rain.
Now, you may get rain all the time in England, whereas we get it once a year and it really floods down and it causes catastrophic damage, but not on a global scale, not even on a national scale.
So, when you look at Noah's Flood, that is the first type of catastrophe that would involve us on this planet.
And it said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and the fountains of the deep broke open, and they brought water out to the surface, because on the second day of creation, God put the waters above, and the waters below separated them.
Then when He rose up the dry land, the water that was on the outside went on to the inside.
So from then on, the Bible talks about waters being below the earth, and we still have quite a lot of them below the earth.
But, a Noah's Flood, much of them burst out.
So, you have water coming up, you have water coming down, and the catastrophisms begin.
But, on top of that, you have two tides every day.
So, it's raining, the water's coming up, it's going round and round and round and round.
Now, by this time, unless you're on Noah's Ark, you're getting to be pretty drowned, because there's no easy escape from all of this catastrophic evidence.
But then it says, after 150 days, the waters begin to go down.
Now, you're going to get the reverse of that.
As the land lifts up again, the water runs off and you'll start to get massive erosion.
And by massive erosion, you go to one of our... Do you remember the rock they used to call Ayers Rock in the centre, James?
Yeah, yeah.
Now you're not allowed to climb it.
We were one of the last groups who was allowed up by the so-called native owners to climb it.
And the interesting thing about the Ayers Rock is that our current expert on it, Professor Twydale, He actually, it's called Uluru now for those who want to be up-to-date and politically correct, he said the biggest conundrum is that this rock is in the middle of the Australian desert and it was shaped by water.
Right?
What you see on the surface is just a tad of what the rest of the rock is in scale, but it was shaped by water.
And that's why maybe we shouldn't poke fun at the Aboriginal story, because the Aboriginal story is, there was a big flood.
And they were rescued by a serpent, all eight of them.
And they were put up on the top of this big rock.
And they protect this place because the serpent's actually underneath.
And what you find is the interesting conflict with Christianity is the serpent has become the hero.
The details of the flood are still pretty similar.
Eight people rescued, water everywhere.
And then the water ran off the earth and you're left with this big rock.
So the reality is we find these flood stories all over the planet and they have so much consistency just as the star stories do.
We talked a bit about stars before, and what's always fascinated me is the Greek story of the Seven Sisters.
You know, Orion, the Pleiades and all of that.
We have the same story from the Aborigines.
They all were in the one place.
Babel is just as real as any other distribution of racial traditions and that.
So when you look at these things, you add them all up, the evidence points to Noah's Flood.
You wouldn't believe it just because of that, because you don't ever get to a point where you can know everything.
James, you look pretty smart.
Tim, I'm OK.
But in reality, we would never get to understanding all the evidence.
So there will always be a faith part of this.
Never deny that.
It will always be there.
How old do you reckon?
When was it?
When was it all created?
How old do you reckon it was?
It was a well-created.
The tongue-in-cheek answer, of course, is five and a half days before Adam got here.
The interesting picture of the Bible, and I've just finished a new series of plaques for our museum, because they come in and the reality, if I pick up a rock like, let's show you this one.
Here we have a rock, and I tell you it's Ordovician.
Now, the stripes you can see in it are, well, to be honest, they're the oldest fossil thorns on the planet.
They're only tiny, but yet it's a plant called Sordonia.
And when I went to Canada to the world expert on this, and I said, look what I found.
Oh, that's Sordonia.
Tick, tick.
We agreed on that.
And he said, where'd you find it?
I found it in Ordovician rocks in Tennessee.
Can't be possible.
It didn't evolve till the Till the Devonian, right?
Or whatever.
So, he had a story of evolution which he was fitting the evidence in, and I said, well you can argue with the Tennessee Division of Geology if you like, because they were there on the day I found this, right?
They're adamant it is not what you say.
But when you look at this and you say Ordovician, why do we call it Ordovician?
Because it was first studied where the Ordovici people lived in Wales.
Now, the Ordovici people are currently extinct, So geologists love to play jokes and names.
You've got a rock which has got some extinct things.
Name it after the extinct tribe that's no longer there, right?
And so this is a fascinating background of this stuff.
But what we've got is fossil thorns.
Not as impressive as these ones that I find under the dinosaur footprints, but they're there on a massive catastrophic event.
But it can't be dated before Noah's flood.
As to when all that was, when you look at the biblical picture, Six days of creation.
No evidence there were ever anything but days.
What are we putting underneath these signages in our museum?
We have a set of eight, I guess you could call them mini murals.
We start with the ancient Jewish Torah.
I have a Torah.
I deliberately get it because I was doing a debate against a Jewish scholar once.
And it was an interesting debate, because my Torah has in the introduction, it's by Rabbi Mariner, and he said it was 5,796 years after creation.
The current Orthodox rabbis believe the world is no older than 6,000 years.
You jump to Theophilus of Antioch, and he said, currently we know about six or so thousand years, not the tens of thousands as the ancient Greeks have said.
Then you go to John Calvin, you go to Augustine, you go to Martin Luther, and surprise, surprise, all of these biblical scholars say, when you take the biblical history as legitimate, as real, it's really hard to stretch it past six or so thousand years.
And I'll be honest, as much as I wouldn't have liked to have gone there, or admit that I've done that, that's exactly where I've got to, because I can't see evidence that the rocks take a long time to form, and I can't see evidence that you can think about rocks If you leave Moses out, because how do you know you can think?
All of our thinking ability comes because we're made in God's image.
Otherwise I'm just an animal, and the kids on our streets go around shooting each other, and they go around on drugs, and there's no reason to stop them doing that if we're just animals who were not made in God's image.
So there's a moral side of this as well.
So I have no problem anymore.
I used to.
I struggled like crazy.
How could I believe the world was only six or so thousand years?
Now, I can see that that's an awful long time.
Look at what's happened in the past 200 years.
That's true.
But still, it's a lot shorter than four and a half billion years.
years yeah so so six thousand years and at the beginning of that six thousand years god created heaven and earth said let there be light and so on and this took place in six days on the seventh day He rested.
So then you've got Adam and Eve on the seventh day.
And so we've got the seven original days and then from there 6,000 years roughly.
Yeah, roughly and all the different species were fully formed from the off.
Okay, you're brainwashed by Charles Darwin.
The Bible never uses the word species, even though what you'll find is the word kind is in the Bible.
If you look at your Latin Bible, it uses the term genus, which is where Carl von Linn and the other classifiers got the word genus from.
It's straight out of Genesis 1 in the Septuagint Greek or in the Latin edition of the Bible.
They took it from there.
Species?
Well, species originally meant something special, but in Charles Darwin's terminology, species is the real thing.
And the Bible says, no, kind is the real thing.
Right.
Now, one reason I did genetics was to find out how much you can push kind around, how much you can vary the kind that you can produce, whatever.
And here's one of the things we studied.
Our professor was a world expert on Drosophila melanogaster.
For those of you who don't remember your Latin or Greek, that means fruit fly, right?
And so what we discovered, if you study the fruit fly up and down the west coast of America, you'll find quite a few species.
But species?
Have they evolved from one another?
Well, they're probably all related, incidentally, but they can't crossbreed, so you have to treat them as separate species.
But why are they unable to crossbreed?
If you can imagine a chromosome being that thing there, there's one end, there's the other, there's the middle of it.
We've discovered that chromosomes can break, and then the chromosome seems to have an innate knowledge to rejoin.
So, if this end breaks off, then it will float away.
And you can watch this.
I spent three years ripping the salivary glands out of Drosophila melanogaster.
I don't want to see another set of salivary glands at all.
And you can see what's happening with these things, and they actually will try to rejoin, and sometimes they'll get it wrong.
But the end that bumps up against the rest of it goes sticky.
There's a self-repair kit, you know, duct tape on micro scale, and they'll stick together.
But here's what happens.
It used to read A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and that's how the fruit fly was made.
Make the guts, make the body, make the wings, make the legs.
Right now it reads A, B, C, F, G, E.
All of a sudden there's no instruction for putting the wings in the right place, right?
And so all of a sudden you end up with a fruit fly that's got miniature wings and it can't compete with the ones with bigger wings.
It can only mate with those that can't get away.
So all of a sudden you have isolation of genetic components, even though there is no mutational change at the gene level at all.
So every one of these species is simply not the result of evolution, it's the result of degeneration.
And we can see that no better than in dogs.
The Bible reports that three of each Three pairs of each kind of clean creature and one left over for making a sacrifice got a Noah's Ark.
So when they got off those three pairs were free to go in any direction they wanted and what you'll find is dogs can actually crossbreed and interbreed and get isolated.
So when you look at Australia's Dingo and you say unique dog Well, it's not actually.
I've found dingoes in America.
I've found them in India.
I've been to India.
I've found boomerangs in India.
You'll even find them in Russia and China and all of this, and you don't hear about this.
You get to have the impression these have all evolved separate species.
No, speciation is usually not evolution, it's devolution.
So when you look at animals that can no longer interbreed, the reason is usually, well, here I have that nice little Pekingese, and there I have the Great Dane.
Now there's no way the Great Dane is going to be able to mate with the Pekingese.
There's a geographic isolation.
This one has got mutant legs, right?
So therefore you can produce new species with no trouble at all.
I could even do it at university.
If you took the drug colcuchene, which is a common ingredient associated with old heart and blood treasure treatments, you can use that to actually force the cells to double up the numbers of chromosomes and produce new species.
We do it for plants, so we can double the size of flowers.
We can produce more tobacco leaves, but they are still tobacco, but they can no longer breed with their parents.
Evolution?
No, definitely.
Degeneration.
So speciation is very real, but it's not evolution.
That's Darwin's Law.
If he talked about producing kind, we can start with tiny tobacco plants, we can end up breeding big tobacco plants.
We can breed degenerate tobacco plants.
Right?
And these species have nothing to do with evolution at all.
Do you get bothered thinking about the complications of being Noah and collecting a male and female of all the different animals and stuff?
I mean, you think about...
I was in Columbia recently and I think there's 1,700, I hate to use the word species, but 1,700 species of birds in Columbia and it's probably about maybe 200 varieties of hummingbird alone.
Okay, so that's not so complicated because they can fly, but you know the reptiles and stuff and the insects, do you think, can Noah really have gone out and got, you know, dung beetles?
Here's one thing that I learned to do early, James, and I encourage you and all our listeners, when someone makes a suggestion or a criticism, go and see if they've got it right.
So what you'll find is in Genesis, God comes to Noah in Chapter 5 and says, hey Noah, there's going to be a flood.
Later on it calls Noah a man of faith because Noah could have said, what's a flood?
I've never seen one.
Well, it's going to rain.
What's rain?
I've never seen rain, right?
And then God tells him to build a boat.
Now Noah is the first mega boat builder in history and he never went to boat college.
So we started out a lot smarter than we are now, which is why Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon have bigger brains than we've got.
Again, devolution, even if you call a separate species.
So what you find is Noah builds this mega boat and then God says to him, I will send to you two of every kind of creature.
Six foot seven of the unclean, right?
So all Noah's kids had to do was hang around and wait for the two mega pythons to come and bid farewell to their little kids.
You see, we tend to think the adults would have got on.
No, there's no reason for that.
I'm pretty sure that in the world where people live to be 900, remember that's part of the detail, you'll find that goannas live to be 900, which is one reason they're probably so big.
But when you look at rabbits, they probably weren't mature until they were 20.
Because it seems like our lifespan has stretched in the reverse direction.
Adam and Eve, most of the families, they didn't have kids till they were 100, right?
Imagine that, right?
Noah had kids when he was 500.
It would be great, 100 years to say you're wild.
I suspect that the whole lifespan and the life cycle has been shrunk.
In fact, in some cultures where lifespan is so short, the kids get pregnant at 8 and 9.
Right.
So we see lifespan responding to circumstance.
And if you're going to be God and you're going to say, well, I'm going to put guinea pigs on Noah's Ark, I better make sure they're sexually immature.
Otherwise, you put two on and you get 4000 off.
So God had this planned down to a tee.
And he also knew that I don't need 3000 varieties of dogs.
I'll send two of each kind of dogs.
Right?
And we've bred them all.
In fact, when we look at the dogs we've got on the planet, because I'm a real dog lover, right?
I've got a big German Shepherd and, you know, it's a real great deterrent to debt collectors and Jehovah's Witnesses.
What you'll find is these dogs can be very friendly, very helpful, very protective, but the big ones are related provably.
We know that the French poodle used to be big enough to chase lions in France.
When we ran out of lions, why bother with big ones, breed the little ones, and we bred them naturally by degeneration from the big ones to lay a separate, really a separate species from so many others, by definition, not in practice.
They're identical kinds.
So, the same would apply to the hummingbirds.
There was probably maybe one type of hummingbird, which then sort of, you got variations over the Yeah, I would say so.
I'll give you the example that I know very well, because I used to edit a creation magazine, and I was responsible for collecting the articles, and I came across a guy who had believed in evolution because he'd done his doctorate in bird evolution and things like that, and he wanted to become a Christian.
I said, well, think about the evolution of a bird that you know of.
He said, well, I know a lot about parrots.
I said, OK, analyze parrots for me.
Because in Australia, if you want to wake up cheery and all of that, you'll find the kookaburras will laugh their heads off if it's going to rain, right?
Or the parrots will squawk so loudly over joy of the new alcoholic berries on the trees, and they'll hang upside down and laugh their heads off and get drunk, etc.
So we are very familiar with birds.
But my experience was we had green parrots, red parrots, little parrots, big parrots.
Are they separate?
Are they related?
Well, he reached a conclusion about two years later.
He said, no, there are basically three families of parrots.
I thought that was an interesting number, because seven of each kind of clean animal got on.
Clean, by definition, was those that did not kill to eat, or those that did not eat dead meat.
Post-flood and pre-flood, that's the definition they were.
Pleasing in God's sight, because they were not killers or scavengers.
So, parrots?
Parrots still eat seed.
Parrots still love to eat plant material.
So when these three pairs left Noah's Ark, one pair would have been sacrificed.
Biggest animal sacrifice in the history of the planet, God told Noah to do.
Three pairs get off and then they've been stuck on a boat for 12 months.
They are not going to hang around for the annual parrot convention next year.
They will take off in whatever direction they wish, and from then on, you will find natural selection occurs, it's very real.
Degeneration, mutation occurs, they're very real.
But they do not produce evolution, they'll produce degeneration.
And when you say, but they're so well coloured, they're camouflaged.
Well, I've kept birds called chickens for a long time.
And the one thing I can tell you about camouflage is that you develop camouflage by negativity.
What do I mean?
I now live in the Redlands.
If you had white chickens, then the foxes see them first.
White chickens will have black offspring.
White chickens can have red offspring.
It's not too long before it's only the red ones that are left.
Now you say, aren't they all camouflaged?
No, they're red.
The red was there before they came along.
They did not turn red to match red.
They were left there because all the others were gobbled up.
So camouflage is not the result of evolution.
It's the result of natural selection eliminating other options.
Yes.
Can I ask you one other question, prompted by what you said about the things moving sideways?
Sorry, you probably want to do whatever you do in Australia in the evening now.
Where are you on flat Earth versus globe Earth?
Well, I've travelled all around the planet many, many times.
I've sailed quite a bit, very rarely by myself because I'm not much of a boatman, but I'm a fisherman.
And I know one thing, that if you actually want to get somewhere on the ocean, don't make a straight line course, because if you follow your straight line, you will not end up where you are.
Now, ever since the Greeks began to concern themselves with the shape of the Earth, and they set up little experiments, like if you put a pole in the ground in northern Greece, and you put a pole in the ground in southern Greece, then at the same time, the shadow will be at a different length.
So, the world's surface, to them, had to be a curve, because a flat surface, a totally flat surface, doesn't explain that.
So, people like Christopher Columbus, they didn't use flat maps or whatever, even though the maps were drawn in two dimensions, they used the stars.
Follow your stars.
Christopher Columbus didn't have a compass.
He had a star.
And for those of you listeners who want to know where you live, then simply go out one night, spin around in a circle at midnight, and the star that's in the middle of your view is your star.
Wherever you are on the planet, If you keep that star in view, you will end up home.
Otherwise, use your Google iMap.
It might be quicker.
But in reality, there are many ways for finding where you are.
But if you want to use the surface of the Earth, you can't use a straight line on a curved Earth.
So, as I love to tell people, go for a trip, use your theory that the world is flat, and you will miss your objective every time.
It's absolutely impossible to do it any other way.
And the second evidence is when you look at military use.
...of the shape of the Earth.
It's failing now because one of my colleagues has been working on over-the-border radar, where we bounce it off the ionosphere and things like this to see what planes are coming way out of view.
But as the early pilots knew, they travelled with a black box in their plane.
They didn't know how it worked, but they knew that if it went bip-bip-bip and there was a light on the screen, then there was an enemy coming at them.
Or, there was guns that were starting to shoot at them.
Now, that's why they developed the thought, when you fly into battle, travel under the radar.
What did it mean?
Well, we discovered very, very soon that radar, like light, travels in a straight line.
Now, if the world was flat, it would travel to the end of the world, but it doesn't.
It will travel to a boundary called the horizon, and it can't go past that.
So if you travel under that, then you won't be seen until you get almost into visible view, which isn't all that far away.
And you rise up and shoot the other guy out of the sky before he even knows you're there.
It's become a paradigm in churches.
So the elders say, we've got to meet beforehand to get some business under the radar, right?
Before anybody else turns up.
So when you look at radar, radar is no help to the theory that the world is flat.
now that we are developing over the horizon radar We're actually proving we need to bend it in order to get round a bent surface.
So those two things and if you go to our creationresearch.net we have a Q&A site there.
Click on Q&A and we have lots of these sort of questions.
I say that James because my wife is down there waiting for me and if you don't mind I'm going to excuse myself in about five minutes.
It's been great to get to know you.
Take one more question.
Oil.
Is oil abiotic?
is oil abiotic.
We've done some experiments at Jurassic Arc, and again, I'd encourage you, go and have a look at creationresearch.net.
Click on Research or click on Latest Experiments and see these for yourselves, then do it and see that it's true.
You don't have to take my word for it.
You don't have to take my pictures as evidence.
Go and test it yourself.
In his early days, John Mackay, we were talking about a certain professor who is very pro-opposing climate change, but very anti-creation.
We won't mention his name, but he thinks that oil and coal take millions of years.
When I gave a paper at the Newcastle Coal Conference, it was on how to turn brown coal into high quality coal.
Because I noticed when I was in the big coal fields in your lawn, the brown coal was really just alcoholic wood.
And that's why you had to have your exhaust all covered up.
You could set yourself on fire with no trouble at all from the wood alcohol.
And anyway, if you want to take wood or Even pollen or leaves and make them into high-grade coal, you need a small percentage of something called kaolin clay.
You know, the stuff we use in pottery?
Now, my experience is that high-grade coal has a tiny percentage of clay evenly spread across all the plant surfaces, and that actually is what causes the plant to carbonize.
Okay, John Mackay's theory.
How do we test it?
We actually set up some experiments at one of our outdoor museums called Jurassic Arc, in which we actually get the kids to make a kaolin clay pad, and we put some green ferns on it, and then we evacuate the bag.
So there's nothing in there except moist clay and the plant that's just freshly picked, right?
Now, the fastest turnover time we've had is two weeks before it's turned into coal.
And you say, how do you know it's coal?
Well, the answer is you can take that previously green plant and you can burn it and it smells like coal.
But as one skeptic said, that's not a scientific test.
So I wrote to one of our professors who's a very well-renowned biochemist and I said, listen, when you guys in your university in Canada, you do a test for coal, what do you do?
He said, we take it, we burn it, we smell it.
Only coal smells like coal burning and he's absolutely right.
I grew up with coal burners.
It's got a really distinct smell.
So in two weeks we can make coal.
The Greenies don't like that because they don't like believing renewables have to be, you know, paid for with wind farms and that.
All of these things that are supposedly un-renewable, we can make them.
At the moment it just costs a lot.
We can also take the plant and we can turn it into gas.
We have made beautiful, high-quality, odour-free methane.
Burn it in front of everyone.
The experiments are there.
Do it yourself.
See the results.
And we've done one more thing.
We've made oil.
Okay, now, John Mackay's logic, many of the oil fields are associated with oily plants like pine, pine resins, right, they burn, you can make bitumen out of pine resins, you can make tar, all of those things, the same ways you can take oily plant, oily, Deposits and get the tar or the benzene and that out of them.
So you take dead fish.
Well, sorry, they were alive just moments before you put them in and you mix them up with the same clay and you actually evacuate it.
And if you don't have the clay in there, it stays as a mummified fish.
If you don't have the clay in there, the plant stays as a mummified plant.
If you don't have the clay in there, you never get methane.
The minute you put the clay in, you put your dead fish now in, you evacuate it, the clay is in there, the moisture is in there, and within a very short period of time, it is just such a ghastly blackie, you can't believe it!
And the organic molecules coming off tell you you've made more than methane, right?
And what you'll have trouble with, of course, is because we're using clay as the catalyst and we haven't figured out the next step as to how to do this.
So if any clay chemist out there has got any ideas, get in touch with us.
We have found the clay sticks so strongly to the oil, it's almost impossible under 1500 degrees to get the oil off it.
And we're trying to make an environmentally friendly, heat friendly, not using much energy to make oil.
So the oil is there.
It's unbelievable.
You get organic biomolecules from the fish and they transfer via the clay into the oil.
So we can make copies of oil using biochemistry.
As to whether you can make it using, say, methane gas, which is an alternative theory, methane plus methane plus methane, you end up building propanes and butanes and all sorts of things.
You theoretically can chemically put those together.
But in my experience, the signature of biomolecules is actually quite distinct from the signature of just organic chemistry, non-living chemistry, still called organics, that you actually put it together together.
So if you want to save the world and you need more oil, then make it in your own backyard as long as you can tell us how do we get the clay away from it less than 1500 degrees, which will cost you more than it's worth at the moment.
But all of that's on creationresearch.net.
And it's been great to talk to you, James.
I better go and rescue my wand.
I don't want to get you into trouble.
Go and enjoy your dinner.
Thanks a lot, John.
Good on you, mate.
God bless.
Great talking to you.
Thanks a lot.
Bye-bye.
Export Selection