Speaker 1: All right, Hi, this William Ramsey. Welcome to William Ramsey
Speaker 1: Investigates on Tonight Show. Have a very special guest. He
Speaker 1: comes to us from Australia. His name is doctor Tasman Walker,
Speaker 1: and he is with a website, but he also has
Speaker 1: a background in the general subject of creationism. But a
Speaker 1: lot of his information that I saw was on creation
Speaker 1: dot com. So it's c R E A T I
Speaker 1: O N dot com and we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: his inquiry and insights into something that's much different than
Speaker 1: people would think, which is the legacy of the Earth,
Speaker 1: out the dates of the Earth, and maybe also contradicts
Speaker 1: kind of evolutionary biology. But he can talk more about that.
Speaker 1: So doctor tas Walker, are you there.
Speaker 2: It's good to be here, Bill, It's really nice to
Speaker 2: be on your program.
Speaker 1: Great, thanks for gring to the interview for people may
Speaker 1: not have heard your background or your name. Can you
Speaker 1: talk about what led you kind of to this inquiry
Speaker 1: and then what's your kind of view of creation is?
Speaker 1: Is that contradicts kind of the modern scientific worldview?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I guess you'd have to say it came
Speaker 2: out of my Christian commitment when I was in my
Speaker 2: early teens, I made a commitment to christ and I've
Speaker 2: always been interested in how things work, pulling things apart,
Speaker 2: putting things together, and I ended up becoming an engineer.
Speaker 2: So that's really my background. So when I became a Christian,
Speaker 2: I wanted to figure out how everything fitted together and
Speaker 2: how it fitted in with science, and that really started
Speaker 2: a journey for me, and I guess it really came
Speaker 2: together when I read the book The Genesis Flood by
Speaker 2: Whitcombe and Morris. I was in my twenties when I
Speaker 2: read that. Before that, I really couldn't see how it
Speaker 2: fitted together. And I connected with a group called Creation
Speaker 2: Science Foundation, which was active at the time in the
Speaker 2: city where I lived in Brisbane, Australia, and so I
Speaker 2: started getting their literature, creation magazine, Journal of Creation Thing
Speaker 2: and I became very interested in how things worked and
Speaker 2: how they fitted together. So yeah, so that's really my journey.
Speaker 2: I worked as an engineer. I was involved with POWERstation design,
Speaker 2: POWERstation operation, POWERstation planning. In the state where I live.
Speaker 2: I was involved in the planning of a hydroelectric scheme
Speaker 2: which over many years and as a result of that,
Speaker 2: I was interested in geology, but really more as a
Speaker 2: mechanical engineer than as a geologist. But I became interested
Speaker 2: in well, I couldn't see how Noah's flood, which was
Speaker 2: a key thing to understanding how it or everything worked,
Speaker 2: I couldn't see how that fitted in with the geologic column.
Speaker 2: So I developed a little back of the envelope model
Speaker 2: scheme for how it worked, and through various circumstances, I
Speaker 2: was prompted to write an abstract on that and submitted
Speaker 2: to a creation conference which was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in
Speaker 2: quite a number of years ago, and I remember showing
Speaker 2: it to a fellow where I worked in the power industry.
Speaker 2: He was not a Christian, but I showed it to
Speaker 2: him and he was interested to read it. And when
Speaker 2: he handed it back to me, he said, yeah, it's
Speaker 2: very interesting, he said, but no one will take any
Speaker 2: notice of you because you're not a geologist. You don't
Speaker 2: have any geological degrees. So as a result of that,
Speaker 2: it prompted me to go back as a mature student
Speaker 2: and study geology. And I got a Bachelor of Earth Science,
Speaker 2: Bachelor of Science in earth science, and we call it
Speaker 2: an honors degree in science in earth science. And after
Speaker 2: i'd done that I ended up connecting with Creation Ministries International,
Speaker 2: which is where I am now as a speaker, researcher,
Speaker 2: write editor everything.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of material there, so people should go
Speaker 1: check out creation dot com because we're going to kind
Speaker 1: of talk about nosed flood and geology, but there's so
Speaker 1: many other address there's a whole set of documentaries and
Speaker 1: things like that. But so you have an academic background
Speaker 1: and applied that. Now. I've had other guests where that
Speaker 1: we talk about how science and creation actually people like
Speaker 1: the early scientist Galileo guys who categorized all the animals
Speaker 1: were all Christians. But that's something has happened more recently
Speaker 1: within the last couple hundred years. So you are seeing
Speaker 1: you're kind of a rare different than the modern scientific
Speaker 1: tradition in that you're seeing things through a biblical worldview.
Speaker 2: Correct, Yes, yeah, that's correct. All the geology started with
Speaker 2: the biblical worldview, and it's mentioned in the science degree
Speaker 2: in various science textbooks, but only as a throwaway line
Speaker 2: and sort of can you believe they used to believe
Speaker 2: the Bible, but now we understand science and that sort
Speaker 2: of thing. So geology does have a Christian heritage as
Speaker 2: one of the early pioneers of geology, Nicholas Tino. He
Speaker 2: lived in the sixteen hundreds and he wrote a book
Speaker 2: about geology which is used even today. His principles are
Speaker 2: sort of the very first principles that you learned do
Speaker 2: in geology. And he was a biblical creationist. He started
Speaker 2: with the Bible and used that as his way of
Speaker 2: interpreting the geological history of the area where he lived
Speaker 2: in Tuscany. So that's something that modern geologists don't really
Speaker 2: want to know, is that these guys that they're still
Speaker 2: teaching about, we're biblical creationists. And so that chain. So
Speaker 2: it started out as a biblical believing the Bible, and
Speaker 2: that changed in the late sixteen hundred and seventeen hundreds
Speaker 2: with a change with the Enlightenment, so called Enlightenment, a
Speaker 2: desire to dispense with any with the Bible and find
Speaker 2: a sort of a secular, naturalistic way of explaining things.
Speaker 1: Right, So this is it's marked the change, and you're
Speaker 1: trying to bring that back. Like when you look at
Speaker 1: and I know that catastrophism exists, there's all kinds of catastrophes.
Speaker 1: There was like the Krakatoa exploded. There's evidence of all
Speaker 1: these catastrophes. Can you talk about catastrophism in the context
Speaker 1: of Noah's flood and biblical history?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, no his flood, of course was a catastrophe.
Speaker 2: It lasted just over twelve months, and we always hear
Speaker 2: it ran for forty days and forty nights, and the
Speaker 2: waters not only came from the rain, but they came
Speaker 2: from under the ground. And so the waters rose, rose
Speaker 2: and rose, until every high mountain under the entire heavens
Speaker 2: were covered. So we read about that, and for a
Speaker 2: long time I couldn't figure out how it tied in
Speaker 2: with science until I read the book The Genesis Flood,
Speaker 2: and Noah's flood is the key to understanding how the
Speaker 2: whole world youth hits together. And so Noah's flood the
Speaker 2: modern geologist. You've got a picture up there of Nicholas Tino,
Speaker 2: but there's another guy called James Hutton. He was a
Speaker 2: Scottish physician and he was very interested in geology, and
Speaker 2: he wrote a book called Theory of the Earth, and
Speaker 2: he assumed, and he made the assumption that we have
Speaker 2: to explain geology by what we see happening. Now. It's
Speaker 2: interesting that geology is it's different from the sort of
Speaker 2: normal the sciences of chemistry and physics and those sorts
Speaker 2: of things where you actually do experiments and you measure
Speaker 2: things in the present. So it's the repeatable experiment. So
Speaker 2: I did that as an engineer. I was very much
Speaker 2: involved in fluid dynamics, and you would set up experiments
Speaker 2: and make measurements and record them, and I would try
Speaker 2: to get my experiments to match or see how they
Speaker 2: agreed with experiments which had done in the US. And
Speaker 2: as a consequence of that, that's repeatable experiments which are
Speaker 2: done in the present, which can be observed and documented.
Speaker 2: And so that's the power of science which gives us
Speaker 2: some modern technology. But when it comes to geology, you
Speaker 2: can't go back in time to see what actually happened.
Speaker 2: You have to make assumptions. So we can make the
Speaker 2: observation in the present. We can look at the rocks
Speaker 2: and see how they're related, and look at the landscapes,
Speaker 2: and we can do all those sorts of measurements on
Speaker 2: the fossils in the present. But the question how did
Speaker 2: they get here? Is how do you do that? Well?
Speaker 2: James Hutton is the guy. He lived in the sixteen hundreds.
Speaker 2: He died in the late sixteen hundreds, I think it was,
Speaker 2: And he is the guy that basically said, well, you
Speaker 2: have to use what we can see happening now, so
Speaker 2: we can see things happening now, and we assume it's
Speaker 2: always been like that. So that was James Hutton's assumption.
Speaker 2: It's called the principle of uniformitarianism. And as a consequence
Speaker 2: of that, you end up with an earth that is untold,
Speaker 2: eons of time old. It's sort of James Hutton said,
Speaker 2: there's no vestige of a beginning, no sign of an answer.
Speaker 2: He had an idea of an eternal cyclic called geological processes.
Speaker 2: It's called the rock cycle. It's been adapted into So
Speaker 2: that's the new philosophy that came in, and based on
Speaker 2: that philosophy, Darwin then he was very interested in geology,
Speaker 2: but he applied that. He applied that to the idea
Speaker 2: of biology, and so he used the slow and gradual
Speaker 2: changes in biology. So that's where the modern philosophies come in.
Speaker 2: And that's basically it's really naturalism, the idea that everything
Speaker 2: made itself by natural processes. But it came in through geology.
Speaker 1: Right, So you're saying just to we state that you're
Speaker 1: saying that Darwinism came out of an understanding of geology.
Speaker 1: Correct of absolutely. Okay, So there's different interpretations of the
Speaker 1: fossil record, right, So you have this different you have
Speaker 1: the different strata. You show that in some of your talks,
Speaker 1: but there's also kind of a different stratification of ages
Speaker 1: or playsta scene or of these ages. How this is
Speaker 1: the geologic time scale, So how is the modern science
Speaker 1: interpreting this and how do you interpret this?
Speaker 2: So basically, the geologists do a great job as far
Speaker 2: as you know, making observations of the rocks, and what
Speaker 2: you've got up there is a geological timescale. And so
Speaker 2: that came out of the eighteen hundreds where they as
Speaker 2: they started exploring things, they started naming things, and so
Speaker 2: they give the rocks different names, like the rocks around
Speaker 2: of Devon in England we're called the Devonian, the Chalk
Speaker 2: rocks and the English Channel on the British coast were
Speaker 2: called the Cretaceous. So they gave them names to document them,
Speaker 2: and that's what appears in the geologic column. So you've
Speaker 2: you've got the Cambrian which came out of Wales, which
Speaker 2: what used to be called the Cambria, and then you've
Speaker 2: got then we have things like the Devonian and the
Speaker 2: Carboniferous where the coal deposits in England. So that's the observation.
Speaker 2: So when you look at the geologic column, basically it's
Speaker 2: a record of what's actually observed and the names are fine,
Speaker 2: but the dates along the side, which they've got dates.
Speaker 2: The Cambrian is sort of five hundred million years old,
Speaker 2: six hundred million years old. You've got the Devonian three
Speaker 2: hundred million years old. So those dates come out of
Speaker 2: Hutton's assumption that present processes are enough to explain the rocks,
Speaker 2: and so out of that assumption comes along eons of time.
Speaker 2: So the eons of time were there back in the
Speaker 2: early eighteen hundreds, even before that, back in the late
Speaker 2: seventeen hundreds. This concept of eons of time, and it
Speaker 2: comes from assuming that the present processes have always operated
Speaker 2: the way they have, and so the eons of time
Speaker 2: was long before radioactive dating. Radioactive radioactivity was discovered in
Speaker 2: the late eighteen hundreds and that was applied to dating,
Speaker 2: you know, radioactive dating in the early nineteen hundreds, and
Speaker 2: it's a flood now. And people think that the long
Speaker 2: Ages were discovered by radioactive dating, but it wasn't. It
Speaker 2: comes out of an assumption. Assumption is that is that
Speaker 2: the present processes have always operated the way they have
Speaker 2: and that the global flood described in Genesis was not
Speaker 2: a real event and it did not impact their globe
Speaker 2: and so we can ignore it. So that's basically the assumption.
Speaker 1: But there is proofs outside of the Bible that the
Speaker 1: flood existed. I think, like in sixteen or eighteen. Cultures
Speaker 1: have some type of myth that involves a flood. So
Speaker 1: there is in human records the event of something of
Speaker 1: the giant watering. And I think you even mentioned and
Speaker 1: I was aware of this that even at the highest peaks,
Speaker 1: and this is a statistic, is a fact, is that
Speaker 1: there's records of water somehow being there, or are records
Speaker 1: of fossils or remnants of aquatic life.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, at the top of Mount Everest has got
Speaker 2: marine fossils, it's got sea lilies, and that the buds
Speaker 2: and stems of Cea lilies have been recovered from up
Speaker 2: the top of Mount Everest. So the idea of fossils
Speaker 2: and being on the top of mountains. Everybody knows that
Speaker 2: that's the case. But that's one of the evidences that
Speaker 2: what you'd expect from a global flood. The other thing
Speaker 2: that's important is to understand the movements of the crust
Speaker 2: of the Earth, the tectonics that occurred, so the flood
Speaker 2: was just didn't come up. It involved a huge cataclysm
Speaker 2: on the Earth where the crusts of the Earth was
Speaker 2: fractured and it was folded, and sediments were deposited, they
Speaker 2: were metamorphosed, and then they were folded, and just an
Speaker 2: ongoing process which occurred. And I liken it to the
Speaker 2: it's not a very good analogy really, but the sinking
Speaker 2: of the Titanic. You know, it took about three hours,
Speaker 2: but it was a process where there was a gash
Speaker 2: in the side and then the water filled it up,
Speaker 2: and then the ship listed and then it you know,
Speaker 2: it broke open, and you know, so there's this ongoing
Speaker 2: processes which occurred as a result of the sinking of
Speaker 2: the Titanic. But it's the same thing on the Earth.
Speaker 2: There's ongoing processes which occurred over this one year period,
Speaker 2: enormous processes, and today you know, geologists with these long
Speaker 2: age glasses try to interpret it in terms of slow
Speaker 2: and gradual over millions of years.
Speaker 1: So that worldview is what the earth is a built
Speaker 1: like a billion years old or something like that. And
Speaker 1: you do you have like a literal biblical worldview that's
Speaker 1: like similar to the time, like how Jews date time
Speaker 1: it started.
Speaker 2: Well, when you think about the past, how do we
Speaker 2: know the date of anything? Basically it's history. Without history,
Speaker 2: it's virtually impossible to be able to put a date
Speaker 2: on something. And I use analogies like timing of a
Speaker 2: swimming race. You know, if you didn't if you didn't
Speaker 2: observe the timepiece when the race started, you can't know
Speaker 2: what the time was when the race finished, how long
Speaker 2: it took. So I look at the Bible. Is a
Speaker 2: history book, consider it to be a history book, a
Speaker 2: Sherman to be a history book. There's good evidence for that,
Speaker 2: and there's good reasons for that. And so assuming is
Speaker 2: a history book, the chronological information is very clear. It's
Speaker 2: about four and a half thousand years ago to the flood,
Speaker 2: and before that another seven eight hundred years. That's about
Speaker 2: six thousand years to the creation event. And so if
Speaker 2: you don't have that it's really had to actually put
Speaker 2: a date on anything.
Speaker 1: Right then, so you believe in the now do you
Speaker 1: also believe that the Genesis account the seven days as
Speaker 1: literal as well? So all the events, so those are literal?
Speaker 1: Then what in that? So the biblical worldview and then
Speaker 1: the modern science worldview or different? So how do you
Speaker 1: address the kind of view that there's these so you see,
Speaker 1: you think these scales are almost like evil evolution where
Speaker 1: there's really no proof, they're just putting times and dates
Speaker 1: on that. How do you square the biblical worldview with
Speaker 1: this modern science worldview?
Speaker 2: Well, he used the word worldview, and willview is a
Speaker 2: way of looking at the world. It involves beliefs, our
Speaker 2: belief system. And so when you say the science worldview,
Speaker 2: I would call that the naturalistic worldview. Right, So there's
Speaker 2: the there's a science of naturalism where the assumption is
Speaker 2: that everything happened by natural processes and it all made itself.
Speaker 2: So that's our worldview assumption. And then you've got the
Speaker 2: assumption that the Bible's recording true history, so you've got
Speaker 2: the science that comes out of that assumption. So it's
Speaker 2: not science versus faith it's basically it's two faiths and
Speaker 2: the science of these two different faiths. And so as creationists,
Speaker 2: we accept everything that's observed, you know, the anything that
Speaker 2: evolutionists observe and document and measure, they're they're the facts.
Speaker 2: It's the interpretations that we look at differently. We place
Speaker 2: different interpretations on these, just the same way that the
Speaker 2: people who have the naturalistic belief system they interpret it
Speaker 2: within that belief system.
Speaker 1: So how does the creationists interpret the kind of geologic
Speaker 1: not the record, but like you know, the record of
Speaker 1: animals that have been caught in you know, dirt or whatever.
Speaker 1: That's all due to the events like the flood. Is
Speaker 1: that right?
Speaker 2: Yes, basically most of the most of the geologic system
Speaker 2: was created formed during the Noah's flood. It was a
Speaker 2: monstrous event. And what is what we see on the earth,
Speaker 2: what we have access to is basically goes from the
Speaker 2: beginning of the flood where there was a huge you know,
Speaker 2: it was a highly energetic catastrophe beginning that occurred, and
Speaker 2: that goes from the pre Cambrian you know, and there
Speaker 2: would be dates on that of two billion years and
Speaker 2: so that was we would say, no, it's not two
Speaker 2: billion years. It was early in the flood. It was
Speaker 2: the right of the very you know, very in the
Speaker 2: early weeks or days and weeks, and then it goes
Speaker 2: right through to basically to the Mesozoic, which is and
Speaker 2: the Cenozoic, which is the very most recent rocks would
Speaker 2: were formed towards the end of the flood. So not
Speaker 2: a lot was formed after the flood because humans have
Speaker 2: to live on the earth, and so you have the
Speaker 2: ice age after the flood. So basically the order on
Speaker 2: the geologic column. A friend of mine, a colleague, Michael Ord,
Speaker 2: has written an article called, you know, the called the
Speaker 2: geologic column is a general order of the flood, but
Speaker 2: it's there are exceptions to it, and so that's that's the.
Speaker 1: Soul you would interpret like all of the kind of
Speaker 1: wear and tear like at you know, some of these
Speaker 1: Grand Canyon or something like that, that would all be
Speaker 1: post flood where in tears that corrected.
Speaker 2: Well, the Grand Canyon was laid down by the floodwaters
Speaker 2: as the waters were rising. So you have these you know,
Speaker 2: very horizontal, long thin layers a roupt these strata which
Speaker 2: they extend for hundreds of kilometers. So that was the
Speaker 2: water's washing sediments into the area, and then you have
Speaker 2: the floid waters of Noah's flood receding when they covered
Speaker 2: the whole area, that carved the flat surfaces at the top.
Speaker 2: You see a lot of flat surfaces in the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 2: And then the canyon itself was carved by the tail
Speaker 2: end of the flood as the flood of the waters
Speaker 2: were almost drained off, and it was carved the canyon itself.
Speaker 2: And there's some amazing features in the canyon which point
Speaker 2: to the fact that there was water ponded on the
Speaker 2: top of the plateau there which which drained and formed
Speaker 2: these side canyons and this fractal shape for the canyon.
Speaker 2: So it's very fascinating and there's articles on creation dot
Speaker 2: Com about that, about the carving of the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 1: So what are the things that are on top that
Speaker 1: indicate that there was water there.
Speaker 2: Well, there's sediments which have been deposited by water that's
Speaker 2: on the canyon. Plus there's fossils in the sediments which
Speaker 2: indicate that they were you know, that these things were
Speaker 2: buried in water. And then what else. The fact that
Speaker 2: the canyons carved flat indicates that some sort of watery
Speaker 2: process has carved it flat. Now please continue interesting with
Speaker 2: the canyon. If you look at the canyon, there's we've
Speaker 2: got this belief system of geologists have this belief system,
Speaker 2: the Long Age uniformitarian geologists. They don't like that term
Speaker 2: so much these days. But the people who believe that
Speaker 2: everything happened by slow and gradual processes and there never
Speaker 2: was a global flood, that's their belief. They see, for example,
Speaker 2: there's some one of the layers in the Grand Canyon
Speaker 2: is called the Coconino Sandstone, which looks like it's got
Speaker 2: very big sand dunes in it, very large sand dunes.
Speaker 2: And because they're so large, the Long Age geologists can't
Speaker 2: interpret those as water laid because it would mean a
Speaker 2: watery flood of biblical proportion. And so whenever they come
Speaker 2: across something like this, they say, oh, it must have
Speaker 2: formed in a desert, right, So they interpret it as
Speaker 2: forming in a desert because of the large sand dunes.
Speaker 2: But there's quite strong evidence that these that point to
Speaker 2: it actually forming in water. And it indicates how these
Speaker 2: interpretations lead us down a wrong path, you know, when
Speaker 2: they say there was a desert and then they then
Speaker 2: use it against against a biblical geologists they see, how
Speaker 2: could you possibly have a desert in the middle of
Speaker 2: Noah's flood, And it comes from their interpretation, not the
Speaker 2: actual fact, that it's not a fact itself.
Speaker 1: And what other geologic proofs are there for people who
Speaker 1: aren't aware of Creation and Noah's flood? Can you think
Speaker 1: any other ones talking?
Speaker 2: Oh, there's lots of evidences for Noah's flood. I talked
Speaker 2: about the flat the flat surfaces there all around the world.
Speaker 2: You find these flat surfaces on the top of plateaus
Speaker 2: where there's been erosion. That's an evidence of the waters
Speaker 2: of Noah's flood covering the whole area. Another evidence is
Speaker 2: as the waters, the waters of Noah's flood, they covered
Speaker 2: the whole continents of North America and Asia and all
Speaker 2: the places the whole of the world. When the waters
Speaker 2: then started to drain off, the ocean basins sank gradually sank,
Speaker 2: and the continents were uplifted. And mainstream geologists would say
Speaker 2: that they talk about the the uplift of the continent.
Speaker 2: So it's it's accepted that this happened. So creation is
Speaker 2: see that as being the process as which ended the flood,
Speaker 2: and as the waters flowed off, they eroded the surface,
Speaker 2: and they eroded out lots of rocks. And there's particularly
Speaker 2: one sort of very hard rock called a qurtzite, which
Speaker 2: were eroded from the rocky mountains. And these were theyse
Speaker 2: were carried by water to the west and to the east,
Speaker 2: and so you have what they these court side boulders.
Speaker 2: They can be up to eighteen inches across. They're rounded
Speaker 2: like they're being rounded in a water in being carried
Speaker 2: along by a watery river, and they cover such a
Speaker 2: huge area. That's that's an evidence of enormous water flows
Speaker 2: which were connected with the tail end of the flood
Speaker 2: as the waters were flowing off the continents.
Speaker 1: And what other Is there any other proofs other than
Speaker 1: that that you would add to the proofs of Creasia.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't call it proofs. I wouldn't call it proofs.
Speaker 2: I'd say evidence. See, when you talk about the naturalistic
Speaker 2: uniformitarian worldview, they interpret the evidence within that framework, and
Speaker 2: then that interpretation is used as a proof, but strictly
Speaker 2: it's not. It's an interpretation. And so one of the
Speaker 2: other evidence is of the ublical worldview. Is I talked
Speaker 2: about the flat surfaces. I talked about the Cortsoe boulders.
Speaker 2: As the waters of Noah's flood reduced even further, you
Speaker 2: find that the waters there's rivers which flow through mountain ranges,
Speaker 2: which is surprising because the landscape is supposed to have
Speaker 2: been eroded by rainfall and snow and ice and that,
Speaker 2: and so you'd expect the rivers to flow around the
Speaker 2: mountain ranges. But we find that they all over the world.
Speaker 2: They flow through mountain ranges, and it's called the water gap. Well,
Speaker 2: that's easily explained as a consequence of Noah's flood. As
Speaker 2: the waters were going down, eventually parts of the earth
Speaker 2: arose above the waters, and the waters then went through gaps,
Speaker 2: flowed through anything which is a bit lower, and eroded
Speaker 2: that down to form a water gap. So there's water gaps,
Speaker 2: hundreds and hundreds of them in the Appalachians and other
Speaker 2: parts of the US. So water gaps are an evidence
Speaker 2: of Noah's flood. It's quite amazing, really, it's quite amazing.
Speaker 1: It's amazing, But it is amazing because I would say
Speaker 1: that you're probably in a very small minority amongst people
Speaker 1: who interpret, like you said, interpret the signs and the
Speaker 1: deeds and the fossil record and things like that. So
Speaker 1: the fossil record is what you're saying is has been
Speaker 1: laid down during the flood events leading through the flood
Speaker 1: and then the receding of the waters is what made
Speaker 1: the fossil records not something gotcha?
Speaker 2: That's right?
Speaker 1: And what has have you debated kind of the modern
Speaker 1: naturalists and uh, you know, gradualists and what is your
Speaker 1: experience with that? I mean, I assume it's similar to
Speaker 1: a Christian debating like an evolutionary biologist or something like that.
Speaker 1: But what's the can you relate or tell about kind
Speaker 1: of what happens in your telling this view to kind
Speaker 1: of modern science.
Speaker 2: Debates have occurred. I'm in writing on pens and paper
Speaker 2: articles and that which are published. And so the flood
Speaker 2: is so significant that it's very much a focus of opposition.
Speaker 2: You know, like if if if the flood occurred and
Speaker 2: if the world is young, then the then evolution is
Speaker 2: dead in the water. There's no way that there's no
Speaker 2: time for evolution to happen, so that it kills the
Speaker 2: whole naturalistic worldview. And so the opposition into flood geology
Speaker 2: is very strong and so you find fine people which
Speaker 2: and particularly and that's connected with the Age of the Earth.
Speaker 2: It's flood geology. It washes away the millions of years.
Speaker 2: So and the age, the Age of the Earth, the
Speaker 2: young Earth kills, it kills naturalism.
Speaker 1: Right. So even this quote that I have up is
Speaker 1: very important. So you see theory of evolution in geology
Speaker 1: intertwined and that interpretation is the either the modern scientistical
Speaker 1: view or the accretions view.
Speaker 2: Right there, gotch and that's right, that's right, this guy
Speaker 2: on BBC saying it's he sees that in England was
Speaker 2: geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from
Speaker 2: a Christian to a pagan nation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and please continue.
Speaker 2: So it's interesting that the Age of the Earth. There's
Speaker 2: a book by a lady called Sherry Lewis, and she
Speaker 2: wrote a book called The Dating Game, which gives something
Speaker 2: about the history of the Age of the Earth. I
Speaker 2: think that's that's it. And she talks about how it
Speaker 2: was developed and so back in the late eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 2: you know, people they tried to figure out how the
Speaker 2: earth was and they used it measured the salt in
Speaker 2: the ocean, how the salt in the ocean was accumulating,
Speaker 2: or they measured the assumed that the Sun was gravitationally collapsing.
Speaker 2: And another guy by the name of Kelvin measured how
Speaker 2: the Earth was cooling, assuming it was once a molten ball,
Speaker 2: how long it would take to cool. So Kelvin was
Speaker 2: a thermodynamicis calvinator fridges. I don't know if you have
Speaker 2: them in the States, but it comes after him, Lord Kelvin.
Speaker 2: So from these guys worked out that the world was
Speaker 2: about twenty million years old based on those assumptions, and
Speaker 2: Charles Darwin said he said about Calvin, he said, Lord Kelvin,
Speaker 2: is you know the guy that causes me more trouble
Speaker 2: than anyone else. I just really dislike what he's come
Speaker 2: up with because twenty million years is nowhere near enough
Speaker 2: time for me for my idea of evolution, right, So
Speaker 2: he said, I need an enormous amount of time before
Speaker 2: the Cambrian for evolution. So that was Darwin. And so
Speaker 2: basically the physicist Calvern and these others who were physicists
Speaker 2: and their calculations. The geologists and the biologists didn't like
Speaker 2: it because it was didn't fit in with what they
Speaker 2: wanted for their theories to work, which illustrates that the
Speaker 2: question is what age would you like age?
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be upon somebody's own opinion or something that
Speaker 1: fit their theory, which is.
Speaker 2: Still it shouldn't be, but it is because people work
Speaker 2: within a worldview, and so they look for evidence which
Speaker 2: is going to support their well view, and if they
Speaker 2: find evidence which contradicts it, they don't say, oh, my
Speaker 2: worldview is wrong. They'll say, oh, this is going to
Speaker 2: be interesting to explore this and to see how we
Speaker 2: can explain that, you know, so it becomes a people
Speaker 2: don't realize that that's how it works. Have you heard
Speaker 2: about the dinosaur soft tissue? Have you probably heard about that? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean they're finding it, they're trying to rationalize it away.
Speaker 1: But yeah, can you talk a little bit about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, Mary Schweizer was the first person. She's the
Speaker 2: one that found it at first, and of course it
Speaker 2: created an enose stir about finding blood cells in dinosaur
Speaker 2: bones which just looked like modern bones. She and the
Speaker 2: whole issue was and she said it this way. She said,
Speaker 2: I couldn't believe it. She said, I said to the
Speaker 2: lab technician, these bones are seventy million years old. How
Speaker 2: could blood cells survive that long? So that's worldview, right.
Speaker 2: She didn't say these blood cells prove that the world
Speaker 2: is not seventy million years old. What she said is
Speaker 2: I've made a discovery. We're going to have to get
Speaker 2: lots of more research to find out how to explain
Speaker 2: it in fitting with a seventy million year age. So
Speaker 2: that's the way worldviews work, and so people accuse creationists
Speaker 2: of being biased. You start with the answer, but everybody does,
Speaker 2: everybody that starts with the answer, and so these world
Speaker 2: views can't be falsified. You know, evolution can't be falsified.
Speaker 2: It's just anything that's contrary will look for you know,
Speaker 2: the person with that worldview will look for a way
Speaker 2: of explaining it within within his worldview.
Speaker 1: And it is interesting because, in my understanding, the geologic
Speaker 1: record does not support evolutionary biology at all, because you
Speaker 1: don't see these changes that are supposed to be happening.
Speaker 1: Do you find that correct?
Speaker 2: That's right. The characteristics of the fossils, there's three characteristics.
Speaker 2: One is they suddenly appear a particular creature and organism
Speaker 2: suddenly appears, and there's it's hard to find any evidence
Speaker 2: of a slowly, slowly organic trail leading up to them.
Speaker 2: Once they appear, they say the same. It's called stasis.
Speaker 2: Stephen J. Girl said, it's a it's a trade secret
Speaker 2: of the fossil record. And the other thing is that
Speaker 2: they suddenly disappear, and so so that's basically the fossil record,
Speaker 2: you know, and it does not support evolution.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting. I've read a little bit about Gold
Speaker 1: and Doclkins in they're actually supposed they're naturalists, but their
Speaker 1: cultural life is actually semi Christian, if not Christian. They
Speaker 1: really like the morality of it. It's really fascinating that
Speaker 1: they can be of two minds like that. Pretty fascinating. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we are at about thirty five minutes. Is there anything
Speaker 1: you'd like to add, anything I missed or where can
Speaker 1: people find your work or reach out to you in
Speaker 1: social media?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, creation dot com. There's a lot of my
Speaker 2: work's been published there. There's videos there as well as
Speaker 2: lots of articles that I've written. I have a website
Speaker 2: called Biblicalgeology dot net where I've tended to write a
Speaker 2: material which is not of such a global interest, more
Speaker 2: and more local interests. And also I'm available on Facebook.
Speaker 2: I think Tasmin Walker on Facebook. People can contact me there.
Speaker 1: And this is you right here right Biblical Theology and
Speaker 1: Independent Voices.
Speaker 2: Biblical Geology geology dot net, so to be there if
Speaker 2: you go Biblical geology dot net forwards last.
Speaker 1: Blogs, but it is here. Oh yeah, you have tons
Speaker 1: of information here.
Speaker 2: There's lots of information and there's a blog as well,
Speaker 2: which is good, really good.
Speaker 1: And you're on Facebook, so do you have a so
Speaker 1: this is is there a way to contact you through
Speaker 1: this website Biblical Geography.
Speaker 2: Through the website, you can contact me. Plus through creation
Speaker 2: dot com you can send an email to me and
Speaker 2: you can get connected that way. That's the main way
Speaker 2: that I'm available. It's interesting. I developed a biblical geological
Speaker 2: model and that's what's on the Biblical Geology dot net
Speaker 2: so to actually identify what parts of the geologic column
Speaker 2: belong where, because when I started out as a creationist
Speaker 2: and reading the creationist literature, I could not see where
Speaker 2: Noah's flood fitted in the geologic column. So I have
Speaker 2: and basically as a result of this, and quite a
Speaker 2: number of people use it now and this particular model,
Speaker 2: it's quite amazing. It starts with the Bible that assumes
Speaker 2: the Bible is recording true history, and it says what
Speaker 2: would have affected the geology and what would we expect
Speaker 2: to see and identify to be able to pinpoint the things.
Speaker 1: And this is a referencing right here right a biblical
Speaker 1: geological that's it.
Speaker 2: That's it now. And I presented that at the International
Speaker 2: Conference of Creationism in nineteen ninety four, which is a
Speaker 2: while ago, and a guy called Michael Ord picked up
Speaker 2: on that, and a few others have sort of they've
Speaker 2: done me a favor in that they've sort of said, well,
Speaker 2: we're going to use it. So they're using it and
Speaker 2: it works well. And as a consequence of that, I've
Speaker 2: produced an article which has proved quite interesting. It's published
Speaker 2: on creation dot com called the Geological Transformation Tool Geological
Speaker 2: Transformation Tool, and that's basically anybody if when they go
Speaker 2: around touring somewhere or they're reading a book about geology
Speaker 2: or reading a national geographic and they start quoting dates
Speaker 2: and that you can go to that tool and you
Speaker 2: put the dates in. There's a I should be diagrammed
Speaker 2: somewhere down there is there there, it is there, it is,
Speaker 2: there's a diagram.
Speaker 1: Go up a bit, Go up a bit, this dis gotcha.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a diagram. So that's a geologic column, and
Speaker 2: it shows where it fits within a biblical worldview. So
Speaker 2: you got the waters of Noah's flood rising, the waters
Speaker 2: of Noah's flood falling, and then you have the post flood.
Speaker 2: Now there's a lot of debate amongst creationists about where
Speaker 2: these actual lines fit, and so there's a little bit
Speaker 2: of to and fro on that, and I talk about
Speaker 2: that in the article, but that gives a very good
Speaker 2: first base. You sort of say, well, these are Devonian rocks.
Speaker 2: You go the thing, look up Devonian and you see
Speaker 2: that's about as the waters we're sort of you know,
Speaker 2: they're getting towards their peak and or something like that.
Speaker 2: So it's a very good tool to be able to
Speaker 2: find your way around. It's not its preliminary and so,
Speaker 2: but it gives you a first good, good estimate.
Speaker 1: So people can check that out at creation dot com.
Speaker 1: And also your website is again Biblical geology dot net.
Speaker 1: All one more Biblical Geology dot net.
Speaker 2: Yeah that's right, Bill, that's right.
Speaker 1: Okay, agree, Well that was really fascinating. It's really interesting
Speaker 1: to me to hear you talk about that, because I
Speaker 1: have a lot of questions about so of this, the
Speaker 1: naturalism and the assumptions and the geologic record how they interpreted.
Speaker 1: But I think you really made your points very well.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: And I appreciate you. Williams Bill, it's really great to
Speaker 2: be hout to join your program. William Ramsey Investigates. All
Speaker 2: the best to you.
Speaker 1: Likewise, God bless, godless,