Climate protestors shutdown DC again today, which raises the question: do these people have jobs? And if they aren’t interested in getting jobs, why should we pay off their student loans? Also, AOC claims that people making almost 40 grand a year are destitute. And a disturbing report shows the dangers of giving hormone pills to children. Finally, Warner Brothers issues a statement clarifying that the Joker is not supposed to be a role model. We will discuss and analyze this shocking revelation. Date: 09-27-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
And yesterday, shortly after the show, actually, well, she was talking to the doctors and based on what she said, they said, you got to go to the hospital.
It might be time.
And so we go to the hospital.
We're there for six hours, maybe more.
And then they send us home because they say it's not time yet.
False alarm.
Which means that maybe there's a chance now that I'll get to deliver a baby in the car on the way to the hospital.
And so that's exciting.
But the point is, on the way to the hospital this time, I happen to mention, and you have to understand the context, I'm not going to get into all of it, but I happen to mention on the way that, you know, there really isn't anywhere comfortable for me to sleep.
In the labor and delivery room.
I just, I happen to mention that.
You know, and that's a problem, I think.
I think, I think that they should make these rooms a little bit more comfortable for the men.
That's all I'm saying.
That's it.
And my wife reacts like there's something wrong with making this observation on the way to the hospital.
And then she says, and this floored me, okay?
This floored me.
And it's one of those moments where you stop and you think, who is this person that I married?
She said, I'm not kidding, she said, well, when you can give birth, then you'll get your own bed.
Excuse me?
Excuse me?
When I can give birth?
I can give birth anytime I please.
I could give birth every day if I wanted.
Okay, this is the year 2019.
Don't try to put me in your gendered box.
Don't you sit there.
Don't you dare sit there and impose these social constructs on me.
How dare you!
How dare you!
And then I broke down into tears.
And I called the police.
And my wife called the divorce lawyer.
I don't know why my fake stories always end on such a dark note.
Okay, what I really want to begin with is, now that we've gotten that difficult moment out of the way, I regret to inform you, ladies and gentlemen, that the climate twerkers, speaking of disturbing, the climate twerkers are at it again.
Watch this. Yes, the.
No, this isn't a replay.
This isn't a replay from Monday.
Remember they shut down D.C.?
The shutdown D.C.
climate protesters?
They were in D.C.
on Monday doing this, and they're doing it again.
It's Friday.
Once again, they're back there shutting down roads, blocking traffic.
Um, because they didn't tick off the entire city enough last time, and they weren't enough of a hassle, and they didn't do enough to prevent people from getting to their jobs and getting their kids to school, so they figured, let's do it again.
Um, and they're also calling, as it may not surprise you, they're calling for Trump's impeachment.
We have 11 years to take action.
We need to hold the Trump administration and all of his cronies accountable.
And the first step that needs to happen is he needs to be impeached for his constant behavior.
Did she just say, I think I heard, did she just say, we will not stand for the destruction of the climate chaos?
Didn't she say that?
We will not stand for the destruction of the climate chaos.
I'm pretty sure she said that.
So she's saying that they don't want the climate chaos to end.
So they do want climate chaos?
Is that what this is all about?
I'm confused.
But here's really my point.
Just look at one more quick clip here.
We have to fight!
To save our Earth!
We have to fight!
To save our Earth!
Alright. So here's my thing.
These people were just, and you saw there's a lot of people there right now, or this morning anyway.
These people were, they were protesting all day on Monday.
And they were protesting the Friday before that.
The Friday before that was a climate walkout thing.
A lot of the same people were involved, I'm sure.
And so they're Friday, Monday, and now they're back at it again on Friday.
That's three days of protests, three work days of protests in the last week, in the last seven days.
Three of them they've spent out on the street holding signs.
So how does that conversation go when you call up your work On the third day, how do you, it's like, hi boss, uh, yeah, I got, I got a call out of work again.
What?
Yeah.
For another protest.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
I know.
I missed the, I missed work for a protest last week.
Yeah, I know.
I missed for a week, a week before that I missed too, but, but, but you know, the thing is, excuse me, what was it?
Fired?
It's just, okay.
I realized that the problem with that hypothetical conversation is that it assumes that these people have jobs in the first place, which, which of course they don't.
But, um, They don't have jobs, and they're obviously not trying to get jobs, because this isn't what you do when you have to get a job.
When you have to get a job, yeah, you should be hitting the pavement, but you should be doing that with your khakis on, and your shirt tucked in, and your resume in hand, hitting the pavement, going into places, shaking hands.
That's what you should be doing.
You shouldn't be wearing jorts in the street, twerking.
At least that's not how they did it back in my day.
And yet, I guarantee you, I absolutely guarantee you, that every single one of those people would tell you a tearful story about how they can't pay back their student loans.
I guarantee, you know I'm right.
If you go there and you talk to those people, And you say, uh, what's going on with your student loans, guys?
Immediately, the violins, there's gonna be a whole violin section, it's gonna be like a symphony orchestra of whining.
And they're gonna tell you all about, oh my gosh, I can't, I've been struggling with these loads and I just can't get a job and I don't know what to do, I just can't, I'm struggling, I, you don't know my pain, you don't, you just don't understand it.
They all want us to feel sorry for them, for their financial position, even as they spend their days holding poster board and shouting slogans into microphones.
And this is why.
This is one of the reasons why.
It's not the main reason.
I mean, the main reason why I'm not interested in paying back student loans, people's student loans, is that they're not my loans.
Not my responsibility, sorry.
But the second reason is, I just don't believe, when I, I'm sorry, when I hear these college graduates talking about how they can't get a job and there's no jobs, I just don't, I don't believe them.
I gotta tell you, I really don't believe it because there are a lot of jobs out there.
You just have to be, you have to, number one, be willing to do them.
And number two, you have to try to get them.
So, you know, I just, I don't believe it.
I'm sorry.
I think if you're a college graduate, you haven't had, you know, you haven't had a job in two years, it's because you're just really not trying hard enough to get one.
But Bernie will still tell us that these poor helpless little puppy dogs need us to bail them out.
It's their right to be bailed out.
In fact, Bernie sent out a tweet last night and the tweet said, getting an educated, listen to this.
See if you can make sense of this.
Getting an education isn't a crime.
We need to cancel every penny of student debt.
So, that of course is a total non-sequitur.
That is what we call a non-sequitur.
And Bernie does this all the time.
Because he is a vapid, silly, airhead of a man.
And this is what he do.
He starts with a... This is what he does.
He starts with a... I just called him an airhead and then I just followed that up with the phrase, this is what he do.
And this is what he do!
This dummy.
Anyway, he starts with a general statement or declaration and then he concludes with a statement that has nothing to do with the first thing he said.
Like, okay, yes, getting an education is not a crime.
We agree.
But why does that mean we should cancel student debts?
See, you can't say getting an education isn't a crime.
Therefore, cancel debt.
There's an implied therefore in between the two sentences and that, I don't see the connection.
If getting an education was a crime, then there wouldn't be any student loan to cancel in the first place because you wouldn't be able to get one because the banks wouldn't be able to loan it.
Just like you can't, it's a crime to be a heroin dealer.
And you couldn't go into a bank and say, uh, I, hey, I need a loan.
I'm starting this heroin business and I really need $10,000 to get it going.
Couldn't do that.
So, you might as well go, this statement from Bernie, he might as well go to Subway, and I actually have no doubt that he would do something like this, go to Subway, order a sandwich, the cashier says, that'll be $6.50, and then you say, wait, you want money?
Eating a sandwich is not a crime!
It makes no sense.
Speaking of making no sense, and on a somewhat related note, here is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I mean, what this all is, is us reaching into our pockets and deciding how we're already spending the money that we're already contributing to society.
The problem is that America is at its wealthiest point that we've ever been, and yet we are at one of our most unequal points that we've ever been.
You would not know that our country is posting record profits because 40 million Americans are living in poverty right now and if the poverty line was real, if it was at around what some people think it should be, about $38,000 a year, we would be shocked at how much the richest society Yes, that's correct.
She wants to move the poverty line to $38,000 a year.
of its people to live in destitute. So we're not talking about paying for somebody else.
We're talking about getting our own rent under control. We're talking about not getting fleeced
by our own landlords.
Yes, that's correct. She wants to move the poverty line to $38,000 a year. That would
be, by the way, about nine. That's, that's, uh, I haven't done the math actually, but
I correct me if I'm wrong. That would, so if you're, if you're working full time on
an, on a, uh, an hourly wage, $38,000 a year, that would be like 18 or 19 bucks an hour.
Thank you.
Assuming, you know, 40 hours a week.
So now what?
$19 an hour is poverty?
So we've gone from, let's raise the minimum wage to $15 to, oh no, actually, $19 an hour is destitute poverty.
Destitution!
She said destitution.
Destitution is close to 40 grand a year.
So if you're making close to 40 grand a year, you are destitute.
Did you know that?
You probably didn't know that because it doesn't feel like you're destitute.
You could be right now, if you make $40,000 a year, especially if you're a single person making $40,000 a year, you could be watching this right now or listening to it on your phone, in your apartment that you pay for, you got your car that you pay for in the parking lot downstairs, if you got your TV there, you're on your couch, you got a refrigerator full of food, all of that that you easily could pay for with $38,000 a year, but you're destitute.
It's news to you, I'm sure.
I don't know if you take that as good or bad news, but there you go.
You're destitute.
I know I've mentioned this before, but I myself lived on 20 grand a year for about five years in my early 20s.
My salary fluctuated between like $17,000.
It got as high as $22,000, I think, at one point.
And I remember at one point I, uh, I asked for a raise to get up to 24 and I was turned down.
I was said, no, you can't get the talk.
But I remember back then, um, I used to think if I could just make 30,000 a year, 30,000, I would go to sleep dreaming of me.
I really would.
I'd go to sleep dreaming of what I could do with $30,000 a year.
Do you believe it?
30,000 a year.
And I never got there, at least not during that time.
Okay, so my point is, if 40 grand a year is destitution, then how did I make it on 20 grand a year?
I basically starved to death without knowing it.
I technically am dead.
I don't know if you knew this.
I am technically dead right now because I lived on half of destitution.
I didn't even rise to the level of destitution.
I was halfway to being destitute on 20 grand a year.
And yet, even with 20 grand a year, I had an apartment that I lived in, I had a car, I had food, I even had money left over for beer.
Well, usually I had to give up lunch so that I could have some beer, but you gotta have your priorities in straight, you gotta have everything in line.
But the point is, I was able to do that on 20 grand a year.
So, 40 grand a year is not poor.
It's not rich either.
That's for sure, but it's not poor.
At all.
AOC is just a bloviating, babbling gasbag as usual.
She's basically, you know what AOC is?
She is basically a balloon that when you let the air out of it, that's what AOC is.
That's how much content is there.
That's how much thought is evident in her ideas.
By the way, if you make $32,000 a year, if you make $32,000, so you're not even at $38,000, $32,000, that puts you in the top 1% of all income earners, not in America, but in the world.
32, that puts you in the top 1% of all income earners, not in America, but in the world.
You are, if you make 32 or more, you are a 1%-er.
You are in the top 1% of all income earners, which means that according to AOC,
even 1%-ers are destitute.
Even most 1%ers are destitute.
So 99% of the world is destitute by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's standards,
and then even probably like 99% of the 1% would qualify as being poor or nearly poor.
So that leaves who's left?
Who isn't destitute?
Warren Buffet, I guess?
Jeff Bezos?
Mark Zuckerberg?
They're the only guys, I guess, and the rest of us are poor.
This is the kind of logic that you get from the left these days.
And so, you look at their vision of the world.
Look at their vision of the world.
Everybody is poor.
Well over 99% of the planet is destitute.
Human civilization is hovering on the brink of collapse.
They have come a long way from hope and change in 2008.
That's all I can say.
I'm old enough to remember in 2008 when it was all about hope and there's a brighter tomorrow.
And now we're being told, you're all dirt poor, you're gonna starve, and if you don't starve, you're gonna drown when the ice caps melt in 12 years.
That is a very strange form of hope.
Although honestly, when I see that twerking guy in DC, it kind of does give me hope to think that we're all going to drown in 12 years.
I sort of, the only thing that brings me into despair is that it won't happen sooner.
All right.
Just quickly, I wanted to mention this because you might be confused about it, but there's this Joker movie coming out soon.
The origin story of Joker starring Joaquin Phoenix.
And I personally, I'm really looking forward to it because I love Joaquin Phoenix.
I think he's maybe certainly the most interesting actor in Hollywood.
Maybe the best.
He's a great actor.
I'm not even a fan of the superhero movies at all, really, but I think this looks like an interesting movie.
Well, the movie is generating outrage, even though it's not out yet.
So, most people haven't seen it.
It's played at some of the festivals, but most of the people that are outraged and concerned and worried about it, most of them have not seen it.
They've seen a preview.
They haven't actually seen the movie.
But there is outrage and controversy and concern over the movie because people are worried that it's going to encourage violence.
It's going to encourage mass shootings and violence.
And there's so much controversy that Warner Brothers had to release a statement addressing this.
And this is what Warner Brothers said.
They said, make no mistake.
Neither the fictional character of Joker nor the film is an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind.
It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers, or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.
So, in case you were confused about this, alright?
In case you were confused, this movie about a psychotic serial killing clown is not supposed to be a model for your behavior, in case you were confused.
And I'm glad that they clarified this, because personally, when I heard about this movie, the first thing I thought was, You know, that actually sounds like a great idea.
I think I'd like to go and commit violent acts.
That's what I thought to myself.
I know probably most of us did, I guess, but we thought, you see the preview and you think, that looks great.
Hmm.
That's a good suggestion.
I think I'll become a psychotic clown as a matter of fact.
And I, you know, I was planning on it and everything.
I'd already got the, I got the face paint and I was, I was planning my, my killing spree.
Um, but then I saw this, this, Notice from Warner Brothers, and I said, oh, so you're saying we shouldn't do that.
All right, well, I mean, hopefully I can return this face paint.
I did keep the receipts.
I'll have to go back to the store and say to them, yeah, I got to return this.
Yeah, I was going to become a psychotic clown, but I decided not to.
Yeah, I was going to.
Yeah, I was going to, but I'm not.
Anyway, can I get my $9 back?
So that's just a really important thing there that we can all learn from.
All right, let's.
Speaking of psychotic.
When we have that transition, you know we're going to something good.
This isn't good at all.
Actually, this is.
Horrifying.
And all I want to do is.
I'm going to read a little bit from the Daily Wire report.
And this.
As as you will know.
This kind of, this story makes me livid.
I mean almost blind, seething with anger when I read this stuff.
As it should for anyone.
Anyway, this is the story.
It says more than 6,300 adults have died from reactions to a drug that is used as a puberty blocker in gender-confused children, according to FDA data.
The Christian Post reported on Thursday, between 2012 and June 30th of this year, the FDA documented over 40,000 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took, I'm probably gonna butcher this, but leoprolide acetate, Lupron, which is used as a hormone blocker.
More than 25,000 reactions logged from 2014-2019 were considered serious, including 6,370 deaths.
Lupron is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria
despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose.
The drug is clinically approved for treatment of precocious puberty, a condition where children start their pubertal process at an abnormally early age and the blocker is administered for a short time until the proper age.
Michael Laidlaw, a California-based endocrinologist who exposed in April that doctors are giving testosterone to gender-confused girls as young as eight years old.
Testosterone to eight-year-olds, okay?
He questioned why a physiological disorder like gender dysphoria would be treated with such drugs instead of proper psychological care.
Gender dysphoria is not an endocrine condition, but is a psychological one and should therefore be treated with proper psychological care, he said.
As highlighted by the outlet, drug sales for Lupron in the United States in 2017 hit about $669 million.
As previously covered by the Daily Wire, Laidlaw, among other medical doctors, sounded the alarm on the increasing use of transgender-related drugs.
And it goes on to talk about these drugs being given to people, kids, children in 3rd and 4th grade.
Anyway, it's a longer article, but you should go to Daily Wire and read the entire report.
Talking about the effects, even if they're not fatal effects, the intended effects of these drugs being given to young children, and what it does to them, the ways that it disforms them, what it does to the proper development of the reproductive organs of these kids, Because of these drugs.
This is just, as I said, this is really psychotic.
And in a world that made sense, a doctor who prescribes testosterone to an eight-year-old
girl because she's confused and thinks she's a boy, that doctor would go to jail for poisoning
children.
You're poisoning them.
They do not have a physical problem that is being treated or cured or in any way addressed
by these drugs.
You are creating a physical problem.
So to give someone a chemical that creates physical problems and does not treat any physical
problem, that's poisoning.
Is that not the definition of poisoning somebody?
So in a world that made sense, these doctors would go to jail and these parents would lose custody of their children.
And I don't say that lightly.
I think taking a child away from a parent is one of the worst things you could do to them.
And it does happen sometimes in inappropriate circumstances, and that happens way too often.
But if you're taking your child into the doctor to be poisoned, if you're giving hormones to your young child to stunt their growth and their puberty because they're confused about who they are and what they are, and they're confused because of you, the parent, You idiot!
Talking to these parents that would do this.
Don't mean to call everybody an idiot.
If you are a parent who would do this, you are... I mean, an idiot would be... That is very generous.
Because there are a lot of other words I could use.
That I'm not gonna use here because this is a family show.
Sort of.
They're confused because of you!
Because you're a bad parent!
Because you haven't explained this to them!
Explain it to them!
It's not hard!
Oh, my three-year-old was... He's been saying since he was three years old he was a girl.
Because he's three years old, you idiot!
You absolute lunatic!
He's three!
Just explain it to him!
He doesn't know anything!
Oh, I guess we gotta take him to the doctor and have him poisoned.
It's the only way.
What else can we do?
You are unfit.
You should be locked in jail with your kids taken away from you.
You are destroying your kids forever.
You're ruining them.
You realize that?
You are ruining your kids.
You are ruining their lives.
You are ruining their bodies.
You are ruining their minds.
You are horrible.
Okay.
I just, I just don't understand how you could do this.
Uh, I just don't understand how you do that to your child.
I, I, you know, how, how much of a monstrous human being do you have to be to do that to your child?
Um, just because of your own ideology and your own, you know, your own delusions.
Oh, no, no, no.
Well, we can't blame them.
I mean, they, they really think, you know, they, they really think that their, that their son is really their daughter trapped in a boy's body.
I mean, come on.
What does that mean?
All right.
One other thing.
There's an airline in Japan that has introduced a new feature to warn you when babies are going
to sit next to you on a flight, or at least the feature, I guess, it warns you where the
babies are on the flight ahead of time so that you can avoid them.
So when you're booking your flight and you're looking at the seat map, a little icon, a
little picture of a baby will pop up on the seat chart, and then you can steer clear of that,
I guess, is the idea.
And a lot of people online seem to be approving of this system.
It seems to be pretty popular.
As a parent of four, Or...
Um, myself, I'm, I'm not offended.
I mean, I get it.
Listening to a baby scream, especially on a plane is not enjoyable for anyone.
Though I found as a parent that I'm less, I'm, I'm less sensitive to it than, uh, other than maybe other people are who don't have kids.
I get, you'd think maybe I'd be more sensitive to it because I got to listen to my own kids scream.
And then last thing I want to do is listen to other people.
But when, when I hear other kids screaming who aren't my kids, The only thing I think is I'm so glad that isn't my kid, especially on a plane.
If there's a kid screaming, it's not mine.
I'm just so relieved.
I feel bad.
I've sympathy for the parent whose kid it is.
And then, but also I'm very relieved that it isn't mine.
And so that's why maybe I'm not as annoyed by it, but, um, I get it that, that not everyone feels that way.
Here's my thing though.
Can this logic extend beyond babies?
If it's not offensive to give warnings about babies, and to single them out, and to single parents out too, by extension, then what about an icon warning where the morbidly obese people are sitting?
Or where the people with body odor are sitting?
Or where the very talkative people are sitting?
So this is what I propose.
When you're buying your ticket, You should have to fill out a survey, maybe about 10 pages, no big deal, covering your physical features, height, weight, all of that, personality traits, any gastrointestinal issues you might have.
Are you prone to, say, flatulence on planes, as some people are?
And you put it all on there.
And this should also be enforced by law, of course.
And of course, if you lie on the survey then, and that's discovered, then you should be thrown off the plane while it's in the air, obviously.
You know, it goes without saying, didn't need to say that, but... And then we can all game plan accordingly.
And we can just... And then it becomes kind of a fun... I think this act, all of a sudden now...
Booking a flight becomes a lot of fun because it's sort of a chess match of you have to decide.
You see where everybody's at.
And so you're making decisions.
You're like, okay, I want to avoid this baby over here.
But, uh, then there's that going on over there.
And okay.
But then I've got this guy over here with body odor.
I've got a talkative woman up there.
Okay.
This person over here.
So, so then, and then you're just kind of strategizing.
And meanwhile, people are trying to strategize around you.
For your own issues, and it could be a lot of fun.
That's an idea.
I think I'd throw that out there to Delta or anyone.
All right, let's go to emails.
matwalshowatgmail.com, matwalshowatgmail.com says, and if you listened to the show yesterday, as you're probably expecting, all of these emails have to do with the topic of evolution.
So I hope you find that topic interesting.
Otherwise, you're going to be bored.
To death by what's about to happen here.
It says, Hey Matt, this is in response to what you said regarding the theory of evolution in your latest episode.
I'm 16 years old and the creation evolution debate.
I think a strong case can be made for either side, not only scientifically, but also biblically.
I, however, find myself on the young earth creation side of things based on the research that I've done.
One thing that you said in today's episode really stood out to me.
There has not been one relevant discovery to have a significant disconfirming effect on evolution.
I would like to challenge you on that one.
In 1991, Dr. Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone.
This has been followed, and then there's a link to that article about that.
This has been followed by similar discoveries in other dinosaur species.
The idea that soft tissue could survive for 65 million years, based on what we know about fossilization, is absurd.
This is just one piece of evidence that I find compelling.
Creation.com is a good source for similar evidences.
Since you're a Christian, let me ask you this.
If God created Adam and Eve through the process of evolution, but did God look at the world he made through millions of years of death and suffering, which evolution by natural selection requires, and see that it was, quote, very good?
This, I think, makes God a lot like, or at least as detestable as, the Calvinistic God you described in the episode prior.
Is it not sin that initially brought death into the world?
If not, and if death really is very good, how is it that you can look at any tragedy in the world today, specifically natural disasters, and say otherwise?
This is not to say that where you are in the debate is a salvation issue or even a theologically significant issue.
It's certainly not in comparison to others, but I appreciate that you mentioned it.
It's always great to hear your opinion on things.
By the way, the title of this email was, how could you believe in evolution?
You absolute heretic, in all caps.
And I see now that that title was a joke, which I appreciate and I'm relieved by, especially considering I have a lot of emails this morning with titles like that, that are not a joke.
And so I appreciate that.
So Ben, first of all, congrats on being 16 years old and thinking through this stuff.
I think when I was 16, I could have probably debated my favorite music video on TRL, but I would have been useless in a debate like this.
TRL, you don't know anything about that.
That was back in the day when the M in MTV actually stood for music.
Anyway, so the soft tissue and dinosaur bones.
That is fascinating.
Gives me hope for a real life Jurassic Park one day, who knows?
I don't think that that has a significant disconfirming effect at all, really.
Because the vast majority of dinosaur bones don't have soft tissue.
There's a reason why this was a significant discovery, because it's never been discovered before.
And there are other examples of it.
But certainly these are minority cases.
You'd expect soft tissue in a great number of them, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Instead, almost all of them look exactly as you would expect for 70 million-year-old bones.
So, let me ask you this.
And this isn't even to get into any of the many, many problems with the idea that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
There's just no evidence for that at all.
And there should be a lot, okay?
To point to a couple little things, soft tissue, if humans and dinosaurs, if humans were walking around with T-Rexes, okay, and Brontosauruses and all of that, and if you are taking what appears to be, on a geological scale, tens of millions of years of dinosaur history, and condensing it, and putting humans with it, and then condensing it down to, what, a few thousand?
There should be a lot of evidence for that.
A lot.
And there's just none.
Anyway.
So let me ask you.
If the majority of the bones look like you would expect them to look under the Old Earth model, which they do, and a small minority have a few aspects that you might expect under a Young Earth model, which model would you say has been confirmed?
Okay.
Another thing to think about.
How do you know that the bones had soft tissue?
Well, these scientists told you, right?
They also tell you that the bones are 75 million years old, or 65 million years old, or whatever.
So this is what young Earthers tend to do, and I've noticed, where they reject almost all of the discoveries and conclusions of modern science, but when any small little detail, here or there, is advantageous to them, they swoop in and grab it.
Taking the discovery, but still rejecting the method used to obtain it.
That, to me, seems like an invalid procedure.
I'm not saying you have to accept everything a scientist tells you, I'm just saying that you should have some logical ground for rejecting all of it, except for the bits that happen to align with your theology.
And I don't think there are logical grounds for it. So that's my issue.
In fact, on the Young Earth model, on the Young Earth model, you can't even speak of fossils at all.
Fossils, but you said yourself, under the process of fossilization, we shouldn't have, we shouldn't have soft tissue.
Okay, but you understand, under your model, you can't talk about fossilization.
That doesn't exist.
Fossils, by definition, are over 10,000 years old.
By definition.
That's what a fossil is.
That's part of what makes it a fossil.
So the fact that fossils exist at all is disconfirming for the Young Earth Model.
And it certainly means that you can't prove them to, or use them to prove a young earth when there shouldn't be any fossils by your model.
On the Adam and Eve bit, so I guess the point there is that you have, in order to use the soft tissue on a few of these bones as proof of a young earth model, You're, like, talk about picking at bones here.
You're literally picking that skin off that bone, and you're tossing so many other related things away with no logical reason to do it, other than it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.
And so, that, it's just, it's not valid.
That's just not logically valid to operate that way.
On the Adam and Eve bit, God said it's very good.
Yeah, and that's a good point.
But let me ask you this.
Satan, we're told, was in the garden, in the form of the snake.
Did God mean that Satan was very good?
Well, no.
Okay, so I have no trouble with the idea that God was referring to the good things as good, and he was not referring to the bad things.
And the thing is, you must believe the same thing.
Any young Earther must.
Especially if you're taking the Genesis account completely literally, and you've got the snake, who's obviously a bad dude, trying to tempt Eve.
Well, he was there, apparently, and he wasn't good.
So we know that at least one thing has to be excluded from that statement.
And then when you factor in the existence of all of the demons and everything, then it's really quite a lot that's not being included in that statement of, this is very good.
All right, this is from JL, says, you keep claiming the Bible says the sun orbits around the earth.
The Bible says no such thing.
Please don't try to support your heretical views of Genesis by slandering God's word.
Well, JL, unfortunately you are wrong.
The Bible very certainly does indicate on a literal reading that the sun orbits the earth.
Does this mean that God was wrong?
No, it just means that the literal reading was wrong.
And that was my point.
That's my only point I'm trying to make here.
That sometimes we can think that something is literal and then it turns out that it's not.
And sometimes the science is what can Lead us to re-evaluate something that we thought was literal and discover that it's not.
And you just can't, when I say that, you can't say, oh no, we can't do that because you're putting science above the Bible.
No, you can't make that statement because that's exactly what we did when it comes to the heliocentric model of the universe.
Or of the solar system, rather.
Just one example, so let's establish a couple things here.
It's a matter of historical record that Christians for 1500 years, by and large, based primarily on a literal reading of the Bible, thought that the sun orbits the earth.
That is a matter of historical record, you can't deny it.
There's just one example, a quote from Martin Luther that I'll give you.
He says, there's a talk of a new astrologer, Copernicus is who he's talking about, who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved.
But that is how things are nowadays.
When a man wishes to be clever, he must invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best.
The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside down.
However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still, and not the earth.
You can find many quotes like this from Catholics and Protestants, who believed that there's just no way that the earth goes around the sun, because it's not consistent with the Bible.
As for the Bible, it has many verses talking about the sun moving across the sky, Which it doesn't.
We move around it.
Now, it's also true.
Like, if you're really desperate to try to make these Bible verses still literal, then you could try to claim that, well, technically, though, the sun is also moving because the whole solar system is moving because the whole galaxy is moving through space.
But yes, that's true.
That's not what the Bible's saying, though, in a literal reading.
And at any rate, it's still the case that we are moving around the sun.
The sun, by no means in any way, is moving around us or going up and down or doing anything like that in relation to the earth.
But on a literal reading, again, that's not what it says.
So I could read, I mean, there's the quote from Joshua that Martin Luther just referenced, so you've got that one.
I don't need to read it.
Ecclesiastes, the sun rises and the sun goes down and hastens to the place where it rises.
Okay, so you've got the sun rising and going down and hastening.
Clearly, this is referring on a literal reading we're talking about, it would seem.
If you were to read that literally, what does it mean?
You would conclude that the sun goes up and goes down.
And hastens, moves, right?
Around the Earth.
Psalms 19, 4-6.
Says, "...Yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has sent a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy.
Its rising is from the ends of the earth, and it circuits to the end of them, and there is nothing hid from its heat."
Let's see, then you've got, there's several others there, and then you've got a bunch of stuff.
1 Chronicles, "...tremble before Him all the earth.
Yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved."
Psalms says, "...the world is established, it shall never be moved."
Another psalm says, say among the nations, the Lord reigns, yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved, he will judge the peoples with equity.
Okay, so, you've got the sun moving up and down, you've got the earth not moving, staying still, when of course we know that the earth moves around the sun, and you can't even say, well, no, they didn't mean the earth, the globe, they meant the ground itself.
Well, we know the ground moves too.
Plate tectonics tells us the ground is constantly shifting beneath our feet, so everything is moving.
The Earth, by no means, in any sense whatsoever, is still.
Okay.
So we look at that, and we see that... Now, for us, there's no problem, because we can see that, okay, come on, this is obviously metaphorical, poetic language.
We still today talk about the Sun going up and down and rising and setting, and we don't mean it literally, of course.
We know that the Earth is going around, and so the Sun really isn't moving in relation to the Earth, but we say that poetically, metaphorically.
Yes, exactly.
It's clear to us now that that's how the Bible meant it.
It wasn't clear for 1,500 years.
And it's only clear to us because we understand the science now.
And that's what makes it clear.
And so I would say that it's the same thing when it comes to the Old Earth, etc.
Okay.
Let's see.
From Jordan says, I wanted to give my thoughts on the issue of evolution versus creationism.
I've studied it pretty extensively.
It was taught evolution in school, even at my time at a Christian college.
I have two primary reasons why I don't believe the theory of evolution as it is presented.
One is scientific, the other is theological.
The example you gave with the moths was a good point.
My understanding is that you would classify those changes within species as microevolution.
Many dogs come from one common set of ancestors.
I believe in that and I think it's undeniable.
I take issue with macroevolution of the gradual ascent over billions of years from a single-celled organism into what we see today.
My issue with it is the irreducible complexities within a cell create a statistically unachievable chance of all coming together at once.
Not only that, but then there would have to be multiple cells that achieve that improbability within the same lifespan in order to procreate.
It is the evolution from one living kind to the next that I do not accept as provable and reliable.
DNA loses information generationally, and macroevolution would require an addition of information to create more complex organisms.
There are many people in the scientific community that reject the theory, and they do so at the risk of their careers.
I don't see the evidence being as ironclad as you made it seem.
Even a 1% difference in DNA creates an enormous gap between species.
I would think it makes sense that an upright being sharing similar traits to humans would have the most similar DNA, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they both are from the same tree, or that came from the single-celled organism.
Theologically, my issue is the evolution requires death and suffering, which didn't enter into the world until the fall of man.
Even the New Testament reiterated that it was from one man that sin entered the world, which brought death.
Unless Adam was the single-celled organism.
I don't see how those work together.
Okay.
So, you know, I kind of regret giving the moth example because a lot of people have zeroed in on that, and that's not what I intended.
I just wanted to give a very simple example of how an organism might change gradually by genetic mutation and natural selection.
Now, yeah, so you put that aside.
I didn't mean for that to be the central centerpiece of my argument.
It's just one small example to help visualize how this works.
I think we struggle sometimes to figure out how exactly would this work.
A change in color is a very slight change, but that's just a hundred, two hundred years.
On a cosmic scale, that's nothing.
That might as well be five minutes.
That's just nothing.
And I think this is where people struggle, because it's so difficult for all of us to conceive of a million years, let alone a billion years.
A change in wing color in a hundred years is very slight, but multiply that change, that degree of change, which is so, so slight, multiply it by a hundred million years and then tell me what you end up with.
The common ancestor between insects and humans, I believe, goes back like 500 million years or further.
So, um, 500 million years.
I mean, think about 500 million years.
Human civilization, About this.
Writing.
Humans have only had the ability to write for 5,000 years.
Writing is only 5,000 years old.
Before 5,000 years ago, we couldn't write.
Now think about 500 million years, okay?
Think about how vast an expanse of time that really is.
You talk about irreducible, so, okay, one other point.
Wolves, you mentioned dogs.
Dogs are a better example.
I should have used that rather than moths.
Poodles, okay, so it is generally accepted now by scientists that, as you mentioned, all dogs come from wolves.
They all descend from wolves.
They have a common ancestor with wolves, with the modern wolf.
Okay, so if we went, let's say dogs have been domesticated for 7,000 years.
In 7,000 years, we went from wolves to poodles.
Is it really that hard to imagine that in 7 million years, we could go from apes to human?
Really, dogs have been domesticated probably for 10,000 or 15,000 years, but you get my point.
Talking about irreducible complexity, I think that's not really a problem.
One example that people often give is the eye.
You didn't give that example, but that's a common one.
I got a lot of emails talking about the eye, basically saying that, you know, you can't do anything with half an eye, so there's no way to gradually get from no eye to an eye.
But I think, or a wing is another common example.
I think that's not actually true, because you can do a lot with half an eye.
I mean, half an eye is better than no eye.
And if you look in the animal kingdom, and in the fossil record, you find all kinds of examples of creatures with different stages of eye, and different stages of wing, going from blind, to sensitive, to light, to able to distinguish shapes, and then on and on and up, until you get to the human eye, and beyond that, and you get to, like, eagle eyes, which are better than ours.
Same with wings, you know.
You've got some animals with no wings, you've got some animals that have the ability to glide, you have other animals that can fly a little bit, other animals that can fly a lot and much higher and further and longer and faster.
So you see the gradation of wing, the gradation of eye.
And so I just don't think that that's true.
As for the death before the fall, Thomas Aquinas, among many other theologians, have said that the curse of the fall applied to humans, not animals, which makes sense when you think about it, because why should animals be punished?
That seems unjust, really.
Why would animals be punished just because of something that Adam and Eve did?
So I don't think you need to interpret it that way, that there was no animal death before the fall.
I think that that is one way you could interpret it.
I don't think you have to interpret it that way, especially because the fossil record very clearly shows that there was death before the fall and rules it out.
And so that kind of helps us, I think, clarify and figure out what's going on.
Then also you have to factor in the distinction between physical and spiritual death.
God says to Adam, if you eat the apple on that day, you should die.
Well, he doesn't die on that day as we know.
Why is that?
Because he was talking about spiritual death.
So there are different Forms of death, as it were, that are also being referred to.
So I think that helps you sort through it as well.
This is from Lizzie, says, I thought your segment on evolution was terribly uninformed.
I really lost a lot of respect for you.
I knew that you had been duped into accepting the older theory rather than the biblical account, but I had not realized that you were a Darwinist.
Highly disappointing.
There were too many errors to count, but here's just one.
You said that no discovery has disproven evolution.
You're wrong.
The Cambrian explosion makes evolution totally unworkable.
You need to do more research.
Lizzie, I got a lot of emails about the Cambrian Explosion.
Okay.
Disproving evolution somewhat.
Okay, let me ask you this, Lizzie.
What is the Cambrian Explosion?
What is it?
Say it with me.
It is the sudden appearance in the fossil record of many different animal species 540 million years ago.
That's the Cambrian Explosion.
That's what it is.
That is what it is.
So when you talk about the Cambrian Explosion, that's what you're talking about.
Now, how could you cite as evidence for your position an event that disproves your position?
It's amazing to me.
You believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
The Cambrian Explosion supports me, not you.
But, of course, you do what I said earlier.
You take the bits of scientific discovery that help you, while throwing away the very methods that were used to discover it, and discarding everything that doesn't help you.
And there is no logical system for this, other than you have your conclusion you're trying to support, and you're only going to take the stuff that works with it.
That's just not a valid, logical process of evaluating this stuff.
So, arbitrarily, this is how absurd it gets, and I'm not trying to insult you, but you arbitrarily, you have the Cambrian explosion, you take the explosion, because you like that, you get rid of the Cambrian part.
So you want the explosion, but you don't want it in the Cambrian period, which was 540 million years ago.
You can't do that!
It's not...
It's just, it's not fair in an argument to do that.
You see, it makes the argument impossible.
If you're going to do that, you've got to play by logical rules so that we can have a discussion.
But doing something like that, pulling the Cambrian explosion to prove that the Earth is 6,000 years old, I got so many emails with this.
And I'm sort of stunned by it, because to use evidence I mean, it's almost like if you're accused of murder, and to prove your innocence, you produce the murder weapon with your fingerprints on it.
It's mind-boggling.
It's literally the smoking gun that's going to put you away, and you just presented it like you thought it was going to exonerate you.
The Cambrian Explosion, the fact that the Cambrian Period existed, you're done.
I mean, your whole thing is done there.
So, the Cambrian Explosion is a big problem for you.
It's not for me.
First of all, this explosion happened over the period of 20 million years.
So it wasn't like all at once.
It was 20 million years of evolutionary history.
Kind of a long time.
Second, there are other areas in the fossil record where you have explosions of sorts.
Usually that marks a major extinction event that preceded it, of which there have been several in Earth's history.
Third, as I said yesterday, the vast majority of life forms do not fossilize for various reasons.
especially, you know, the...
It takes certain conditions in the Earth, on the Earth, in the climate,
to facilitate and precipitate fossilization.
And so most life forms will never fossilize.
And even the ones that do, most of those we're not going to find.
Because we're not excavating the entire Earth to find them.
Especially if it's buried under, you know, 2,000 feet of water or something.
So, fourth, not every species is found in the Cambrian Period.
Some appeared later, which again points to evolution.
Fifth, the evolutionary model does not provide a full explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.
That's true, because it's not possible to fully explain something that happened half a billion years ago.
But the Young Earth Model provides no explanation for it whatsoever, because the Young Earth Model claims that the Earth didn't exist when it happened.
So that's the problem you're going to run into, and I think it's a big problem.
Last thing, do I have, okay, I've probably, alright, one more, one more thing we'll do here real quick.
This is from Steven, says, Matt, you put too much weight on genetics.
Just because we're 99% matched with chimps in our DNA doesn't mean that we're related.
Couldn't God have designed us that way separately?
If DNA is a building block of life, and chimps look a lot like us, doesn't it make sense that they have the same building blocks?
Doesn't mean that we're related.
Yeah, Steven, sure, God could do it however he wants, that's for sure, but this is something That I notice that people do.
Another thing that is common is where they go, well, God could have done it this way, and then based on that argument, they conclude that he did do it that way.
But that kind of logic just doesn't work, because that kind of logic can justify any conclusion.
By this logic, you are justified in believing anything that is logically possible.
You see, you could believe that leprechauns exist on the basis simply that God could have made them, they could exist, they are possible, it is feasible, so therefore they exist.
You see, but you can't do that.
What we're asking is, we're not asking what's possible, we're asking what's probable, what's most plausible, what's most likely based on the evidence.
Where does the evidence point, generally speaking?
Do the similarities in our DNA, and yes, our appearance, objectively point towards a relationship or away?
Yes, we could have those similarities and not be related.
We could, that's true.
But do the similarities actually objectively point away from the relationship?
So, if I were to ask you, Why do you think that chimps and humans aren't related?
Would you say, well, because they look so much alike and their DNA is 99% matched?
No, you wouldn't say that, because that's something you have to work around and explain.
That's not evidence pointing in your direction.
You must admit, at least, that the physical similarities and the genetic similarities between chimpanzees at least are evidence in the corner of people who affirm evolution.
Okay, so that's something you gotta deal with.
It's not in your corner, that's over here.
But you can't deal with it by saying, well, yeah, but it could be this way.
See, you have to give evidence that it was that way.
Look, if we want to talk about coulds, yeah, we look like chimps.
Now, we look similar to chimpanzees.
But we don't... God could have done it any way he wanted, you know?
And you say, well, DNA is the building block of life, so of course we look to say, well, God didn't need to... God didn't even need to use DNA.
We could have no DNA.
DNA is not logically necessary.
God could have made people any way he wanted.
God didn't need to make chimps and human beings look the same.
God didn't need to make our DNA the same.
God didn't need to give us DNA at all.
God didn't even need to make chimpanzees at all.
Yet he did, right?
And so, and he did, and he also made it so.
They look very similar, they have very similar genetics, very similar DNA.
That's how he made it.
And so now we have to ask ourselves, why are those similarities there?
It is that we certainly have the appearance of a relationship.
My explanation for that is, we have an appearance of a relationship because we are related.
So I have a very simple explanation.
I have an explanation, Occam's Razor, I have an explanation that doesn't really require any additional assumptions or anything.
It's just, why do we look the same?
Why does it appear like we're related?
Well, because we are.
Okay?
Simple explanation.
Your explanation is, well, you don't really have one.
Your explanation is, well, it could be this way, maybe God did it that way because of this or that or this or that.
You've got this very complex, complicated thing that you're doing, leading to no conclusion at all, really.
And I think you do have a serious theological problem in that it would seem That if we are not related, and if evolution is not true, then it would seem like God certainly made things to look like it's true.
And what is God doing?
Deceiving us?
It's the same thing that young Earthers do with the speed of light.
The distant light problem for young Earth creation is, I think, a devastating problem, insurmountable, because we know that light travels a certain distance in a year.
So if we look at a star that's four light years away, we're looking four years in the past, because that light that's reaching our eyeballs now took four years to get there, right?
Well, the problem for young Earth creationists is that we can see stars that are millions of light years away, which means we're looking millions of years into the past.
Because that's how long it took, because it took that long for the light to get to us.
Okay?
I mean, we can literally look into the past as if we have a time machine, and we can see how old the universe is.
That's how scientists do it.
So, how do young earthers get around that?
Well, they say the same thing they do with the chimpanzee thing.
They say, well, I mean, it could be that light traveled faster before.
You know, maybe thousands of years ago, light traveled a lot, a lot, it would need to travel a lot faster to make up that distance.
But, so, maybe thousands of years ago, light traveled exponentially faster.
It could be.
It could be that way.
It's possible.
God could have done that.
Yeah, he could have.
It is possible, but there's no reason to think that.
And you certainly can't get from, it could be, to, it definitely was, without any step in between.
Just because it could doesn't justify your conviction that it definitely was that way.
But in order to maintain the Young Earth thing, you must You must conclude, based on a could, you must conclude definitely that light traveled much faster in the past, even though there's no evidence and no real reason to think that.
You see, so that's, it's just, again, it's a, it's an illogical process.
It's an invalid, illogical process that is used, I think, to support a lot of these conclusions.
Alright, that was fun.
I enjoyed that.
Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.
And we will leave it there.
Have a great weekend.
I'll see you on Monday, as long as the baby doesn't come in between.
I will see you on Monday.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Gelliwire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and the Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler, audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
