Design in God's World

[Music] hi good evening everybody and welcome to our interview this evening and we're going to be speaking tonight about design in god's world and i have with me a very special guest all the way from the uk professor stuart burgess who's professor of design and engineering at bristol university so we're going to be discussing the issue of designing god's world um in a moment but first of all before that i just want to tell you um about a few things that are coming up in october we have an online mega conference taking place um october 28th to the 30th of october it'll be a three-day online conference live on answers tv and so there'll be a link to that in the comment section below and i would encourage you to to sign up for that there's gonna be three days of amazing talks from amazing speakers from all around the world i'll be participating in that as will professor stuart burgess and just so you know i'll be speaking on the subject of scoffers and i had this arrived today all the way from the us this is my new book that has just come out scoffers responding to those who deliberately overlook creation and the flood and so it's an exposition and application of um two peter chapter three and so there's going to be a link to that in again in the comments section below so i would encourage you to get your hands on that book um and another book that i'm going to recommend and i had to dig this book out of my son's bed just about half an hour ago because he's been reading it and it's um stewart um is by stuart burgess and professor andy mcintosh wonders of creation design in a fallen world if you have not yet got this book then you need to get your hands on this book as soon as you can this is an amazing um book that deals with different aspects of design in god's creation it's a great book also to give away to people maybe who need to consider um this issue so again there'll be a link to this in the in the comments section below but i encourage you to get your hands on those resources um but without any further ado i'm going to welcome my guest this evening welcome stuart um to our interview tonight yeah thank you for having me um for those that don't know you've actually won several um national and international awards for engineering and design so can you tell us some of the things that you've designed and won awards for uh yeah i've worked in a few different areas i've worked for the european space agency mainly on earth observations satellites also some rockets the skylark rocket i even worked a little bit on the hubble space telescope i've also designed parts of atomic force microscopes mainly the positioning stage that's the mechanism that holds the sample for the microscope been working on that mainly in the last 10 years but i've also probably the most enjoyable work has been working for team gb racing bicycles uh i led the design of the transmission for the rio and also the tokyo olympics that have just taken place and i'm happy to say in tokyo team gb came first again for the cycling and of course that was more to do with the chain than the cyclists that's the real secret to to winning the gold medals but it's been a really it's been a great privilege to work at the forefront of engineering technology to work with fantastic designers around the world really um exciting to be at that forefront of technology yeah and i just saw a comment from someone there from australia and of course if anyone watched the olympics at the velodrome with the cycling they'll know that actually one of the australian bikes collapsed in literally as as the cyclist was going around um the track and how what why did that happen stuart it's because um when you're designing an optimal thing like an olympic racing bicycle you have to go to extremes of design and you get the lightest component possible but if you do that if it's just slightly overloaded it might break and every designer knows the feeling of worrying that their parts gonna break when i i saw that live on the television i really felt sorry for the designer of that part but when you design you you do get nervous you realize that things can go wrong design doesn't happen by chance it's a difficult thing yeah which leads us to the question stuart how difficult then is it um to design things anything is it is it easy or is it is it is there a procedure in it well it can seem easy you know you look at a car and on the outside it all looks pretty compact but if you really look under the bonnet look inside the engine you realize design is is actually very complicated to design a complex technical system like a say a spacecraft or a microscope it takes years of planning and years of testing to get all the subsystems finely tuned and optimized every designer knows that those things have to be carefully planned interestingly i mean i've been designing now for nearly 40 years and when i speak to other designers even those without a religious agenda they they say to me they cannot see how people can believe in the theory of evolution because design needs such planning and such care and such precision [Music] but i also find that the proponents of evolution who've usually never designed anything seem to have a poor understanding of why a complex system actually needs design so just as an example what would you say is the most difficult thing that you've ever had to design the most difficult thing i had to design was a deployment gearbox for a spacecraft solar array the difficulty was there was a very small amount of space for the mechanism to fit there wasn't anything in the whole world i had to design a gearbox from scratch something that had never been designed before i couldn't apply a theory of evolution and just adapt to another gearbox i couldn't evolve anything i had to create something completely unique and i invented what's called a double action worm gear set a completely unique gear set there's a world patent on it it won a lot of national prizes when i first designed it i presented it at oxford university and an oxford professor said that can't work we no one's ever done that before it was so different but it did work and it was very successful and it's still used on european satellites it was used for 20 years on european satellites but that's an example of how in design sometimes you have to design something completely unique and it's it's hard to say how i came up with this double action worm gear set uh if you invent something that has never existed before it's really hard to explain how you do that we have this phrase amongst engineers that scientists describe what is engineers create what has never been so engineering is a harder profession than uh science but again that also um is relevant for the natural world uh something must have invented the great things that we see in creation and that inventor is god yeah and which leads us to our next question stuart because the bible tells us the apostle paul tells us in romans 1 20 that god's attribution his nature has been um portrayed through creation ever since the creation of the world romans 1 20 tells us so you know that tells us that god's nature is there in creation that we can recognize um creation but how do you recognize design what what can we what tips could you give to people to say this is how you recognize that something is designed yeah i think um anyone who's honest looking at the beauty of creation looking at the complexity of the natural world anyone who's honest has to say there must be a designer every day we're all putting order into the world tidying things up we know that order comes about by some intelligent means but you can actually describe it in a more technical way i've written a book hallmarks of design and i have particular uh hallmarks of a designer one of them is irreducible complexity which is quite well known amongst the creationists what it means is there are certain systems that can't come about step by step you see that in an engineering system um if if you're designing a spacecraft you can't just add one component at a time all the components have to be there together for the whole system to work but that's also true of biological systems i've done a lot of research on the human knee joint producing bio-inspired robotic joints i've published a lot of papers that show that it's an irreducible system you need a lot of different parts the bones the ligaments the muscles if they're not all there in place then the system won't work and so what that means is you can't evolve a knee joint from another kind of joint like the elbow joint and if you look at the fossil record there's no evidence of anything intermediate and it's that kind of irreducible complexity that gives very powerful evidence of design but i would emphasize that the basic beauty and complexity of creation is an evidence to everyone yeah and just to remind everyone who's watching if you have a question on design and you want to ask professor burgess that we'll try and get to that maybe towards the end of the program and it's great to see people watching from switzerland from monte de veo in uruguay from denver and someone's even mentioned the fact that they just received um wonders of creation for their birthday in the reading it so that's really good a great encouragement that book is to many people so if you haven't got it yet a reminder um to get that book but stuart what what would you say um what is that is a powerful design an example of design in the natural world what is the most powerful for you um of something that's designed in the natural world well there are so many it's really hard to to choose i've done quite a lot of work on flight the flight of insects i think any kind of flight is a very powerful uh example but actually one of my favorite would be the human blood circulation system because it's an incredible plumbing system and being a mechanical engineer i've been involved in plumbing systems before central heating systems but the plumbing system in the in the human blood circulation system is beyond anything that engineers could have done or even could dream of the heart it's a double pump it pumps two separate circuits in the body there's a low pressure circuit ideal for the lungs and a high pressure circuit ideal for the body getting blood right to the end of the legs and back for the heart to be able to be a double pump uh it has these four chambers uh it's really remarkable and when you think that the heart pumps over 7 000 liters of blood a day in an adult and it can do that for up to 100 years or more uh it's really quite astounding engineers can only dream of producing a system or a pump that could do that interestingly the organs of the body are plumbed in parallel what that means is you don't have blood just going to say the stomach or the bladder and then going on it actually bypasses and there's a separate parallel circuit to them that keeps the pressure of the whole system up so it's a very complex system and if you speak to an engineer about building a central heating system you can't do that step by step everything has to be in place otherwise you've got leaks and chaos especially with plumbing everything has to be sealed tested it's got to be all ready to go and so it is with the blood circulation system and just to add one other a standing statistic if you add up the length of all the blood vessels in the body it comes to something like a hundred thousand miles of blood vessels which is just mind-boggling and something that engineers could just not replicate yeah you cut we can't even comprehend that that's an amazing fact and as you said that could never have evolved step by step but stuart um as an as an engineer i know engineers all the time are trying to improve um man-made products quite in you know design that they see in nature but could you give us some examples of this and how does this point to the to the living world having been designed by god uh yeah this is a really this is an area of growing importance at the moment bio-inspired design or biomimetics one of the most famous examples comes from the wright brothers the famous americans just over a hundred years ago they designed the first airplane i think it was called kitty hawk and one of the keys to their success was that they studied bird flight they studied birds like pigeons the reason they studied birds was because all of the engineers at the time were having trouble controlling these aircraft every time they went to a turn the plane would crash and no one knew how to get the right control flaps the right control and the wright brothers were the first to solve it and they solved it by studying birds and what they noticed with pigeons is that when the pigeons did a turn their tail feathers would twist in the opposite direction to compensate for what was the differential drag on the wings and once they'd learned that from the birds they then put on similar control flaps onto the aircraft and they were very surprised it worked very quickly and they became very very famous but that's just one example other examples include velcro which came from the burr plant and velcro has been extremely successful also self-cleaning glass inspired by the lotus plant i've done byron's by design myself for the knee joint i mentioned that but also i've studied dragonflies and produced bioinspired microair vehicles so it's a really broad and successful area that there are journals that record lots of examples but bio-inspired design i believe provides very strong evidence for intelligent design because if evolution were true nature would be less sophisticated than human engineering because evolution is restricted to step-by-step change when i'm teaching my students i tell them i expect very innovative designs because they're not restricted to step-by-step change but what we actually find in the natural world is that nature is superior uh to human engineering that's exactly what you would expect by biblical creation but not by evolution so i think bioinspiration is a really exciting area but it's a great friend and support of biblical creation yeah and there's some great work being done um in that area now i can see um a comment has come up by obviously someone who maybe doesn't agree and he's asked a question or made a statement and i know you've answered this question probably a thousand times stuart it's the question of the human eye john has stated what about the human eye if it was designed it's a half fake job and i know richard dawkins brings him up a lot he brings that argument up so what about it stuart is the is the human eye half-baked is it a bad job uh the first thing i would say with that is i have spoken with the medical experts biologists who have told me that they are in absolute awe of the brilliance of the design of the eye if you speak to a camera designer they would say engineers cannot get anywhere near the size of an eye if you're producing a camera that can do the things that an eye can do if you study the iris it has many dozens if not hundreds of tiny muscles uh two antagonistic sets of muscles that can open and close the pupil with precision very fast it is the most staggeringly brilliant design it also works and when when richard dawkins says uh the eye is a bad design he doesn't explain you know that it doesn't work particularly well the the human eye has incredible resolution um and works extremely well as for it being a bad design dawkins has claimed that it's wired backwards because as light goes through the eye uh it has to travel through the retina to get to the back of the retina to the light sensitive cells now that is a very blatant mistake because dawkins is unaware of the fact that scientists have discovered what are called muller cells which are effectively fiber optic cables that guide the light through the retina it doesn't the light doesn't degrade as it goes through the retina it actually goes through fiber optic cables and not only does it not degrade but those fiber optic cables incredibly do signal conditioning on that light signal they even cut out reflected light i think they do other things and engineers aren't so in all of that design they would like to copy that um so the problem with the eye is not a bad design in the eye that what the problem is is dawkins lack of understanding of how the eye actually works and what research has been carried out that that leads to it to i guess to another question stuart i can see someone has stated um just because the eye is cool doesn't mean it doesn't have huge problems so you know if we're saying the eye is designed um if there are problems with it what does that mean how do we account for those problems and why do those problems occur yeah i think that's a good question um if i go back 20 years i wasn't wearing glasses um but now in fact now i have to wear two pairs of glasses for long sight and short sight uh it's a good question because the bible explains that uh the creation now is not how god created it originally when god created things originally there was no death no disease no growing old adam and eve would never have needed glasses even after a thousand years uh they wouldn't have had arthritis and other things but because of the rebellion of adam and adam and eve god carried out his judgment of a curse on creation that's had a huge effect so when when i talk about very good design i'm leaving aside growing old death and disease i'm talking about the concept of design but sadly we get old things go wrong there are also some horrible diseases and the the eye can you can obviously have you can go blind and have other diseases but the basic design itself is is a very good design and when the bible says we're fearfully wonderfully made i believe modern science has shown that to be true yeah i mean just because there's bad design in certain things or what we perceive as bad design often people try and use that to say well it couldn't have been created but that's a that's a bad argument isn't it because just because something's badly or doesn't work properly it doesn't mean it is not designed yeah and william paley the famous uh author from wrote in 1802 natural theology and and he said if you found a watch a swiss watch and it broke down one day you wouldn't then say i now conclude it wasn't designed it obviously is still designed the fact that it broke down doesn't matter yeah and so obviously we we've been talking about richard dawkins and atheists and because atheists will bring up all sorts of objections um to biblical creation to intelligent design in fact one of the things they say you know intelligent design or creation isn't a scientific concept it's rather a god of the gaps concept um arguments because it relies on faith is that a good argument is it a fair argument stuart yeah i've often heard that sometimes intelligent design is called god of the gaps because supposedly uh if an intelligent design proponent can't think of an answer they say oh god did it and you know that just that solves that whereas supposedly the evolutionist is looking for science to answer everything but i would say it is the complete of opposite i would say evolution is god of the gaps and i have even heard a senior professor uh in in my university who's who's not a christian and he has said to me i admit evolution is the real god of the gas why did he say that the reason is this if you take for example the origin of life from a chemical soup if you say to an evolutionist how did life come from a chemical suit the answer will be evolution did it if you say okay but how did evolution do it they'll say evolution did it if you say well explain to me in detail and they say well i don't know if you read richard dawkins book the greatest show on earth he says i don't know i just believe evolution did it it's complete blind faith they don't know the answer so they said evolution did it and now you could look at the origin of flight the origin of a lot of things and now say well evolution did it natural selection did it in contrast what an intelligent design or creationist would say is that if you need an almighty creator to create life from nothing then you need a creator that's not god of the gaps that's the god of necessity and so intelligent design makes far more sense and it's actually evolution which is the god of the gaps and if i could just add one more point when an evolutionist talks about uh the bad design argument they are using a design argument but in the opposite direction now you can't on the one hand say i think the eye is badly designed and therefore intelligent design is not true you can't then say a design argument is not scientific because they've just used that it's just that we disagree with the bad bad design argument but that shows that they're using a design argument but just in a different way yeah and i could see there's a there's a good bit of interaction going on in our comment section which is which is great folks we we love that people are interacting and i can see people are bringing up a lot of questions i can see john's brought up another question we thank you john for your questions even though you're obviously um an evolutionist and you don't believe god created well we'd ask you just to pay attention to what's been said to take it to heart to really think about it but john did ask the question um if we're talking about design and god design what's the meaning of flower is there any purpose to a flower stewart in its design uh yeah i mean in my books i've written a lot about added beauty uh the lord jesus uh said that god has clothed the flowers of the field i.e jesus is teaching that god made the flowers deliberately beautiful for our sakes i really appreciate flowers my wife appreciates them especially when i give her flowers flowers have an incredible design not just the smell but the smoothness of the petals the shapes the colours god has made flowers for his own pleasure to see them he's and also for us of course flowers do attract insects for pollination but flowers are far more beautiful than they need to be they don't need to be so colorful so beautiful and so they really they only make sense uh through creation not through evolution and if i can just mention charles darwin talked about the abominable problem why did charles darwin say that charles darwin if you read his books he'll say that flowers caused him a lot of heartache and they were an abominable problem because he could not understand how flowers could come about so fast in with his looking at the fossil record and so beautiful darwin was very honest uh when he he thought flowers were a big problem to the theory of evolution and i think they are too because they're so beautiful i mentioned already one senior professor that i knew who thought evolution is god at the gaps i would just like to share that having been in academia for over 30 years at cambridge at bristol at liberty in the united states one of my biggest surprises how many senior academics professors are very sympathetic to intelligent design who can see the immense weaknesses of the theory of evolution although normally they won't admit that to the press because if you admit that that there is a bit of bullying that goes on but i'm just talking from my experience uh evolution has has many problems and many academics can see that yeah and beauty be as you said would be um one of those problems how they account for and i think one of my favorite examples that you often point out stuart is the peacock feather um the immense beauty that we see in there we actually do we see it can't we see that there's actually a degradation in the peacock flower over time yeah that's right i mean just to mention john maynard smith was a very famous evolutionist he died a few years ago and he quoted that to him the existence of beauty was the biggest problem to the theory of evolution why why do you get this immense beauty of flowers of bird feathers of birdsong in the case of the the peacock there's this photonic crystals or thin film interference it's precision physical effects that produces optical interference so in the peacock it's not pigment colors but colors produced by very special optical effects and you get these amazing uh patterns you know there's an incredible degree of precision in the in the peacock and you know some people say that the female pee hem can hardly see some of the details of the patterns if you look at some of the fringes around for example the eye pattern of the tail feathers and if the female cannot even see the patterns how can they be choosing those patterns and there's one particular paper that has been analyzing the beauty of the peacock tail feathers over various generations and what they've shown is that surprisingly to them the beauty was degrading but that's exactly what creationists predict that we're in a world which is degrading it's not getting more more beautiful it's it's losing beauty and health yeah um we're going to go to another question now stuart i know you you mentioned this a few moments ago the fact that you look you've been in academia for nearly 30 plus years you've worked you work at bristol which for people in the us around the world who don't know is one of the top leading universities here in the uk and professor burt just has also been at cambridge university and you'll often hear atheists and evolutionists say well there's there's no um scientific papers out there that uh or publications that you know show intelligent designer show creation you know is that is that correct are there other papers that you know out there that argue for this position that's not correct uh there are many scientists who believe in intelligent design who do lots of publications closely related to some of the talks they give on intelligent design one thing i would say is that uh when a scientist writes at the end of their paper while this supports intelligent design it gets very quickly airbrushed out there are lots of examples of that there was an example in the last year from asia i can't remember the journal but these chinese authors put well this is obviously a great design by god and they were told off it had to be deleted but the paper still got published i've published around 180 scientific papers on the science of design over 30 are on biomechanics and all my papers on biomechanics on the knee joint um on the peacock feathers they very much relate to the the things i give in my talk so when i give talks i'm talking on subjects that i have been analyzing in my own lab with my own microscope in my own work i see evidence for intelligent design through the work of my own hands and things that i i work on myself i'm not speaking second third fourth hand it's and i can say that in the 30 years i've been working in my lab doing work publishing it has absolutely confirmed my faith it's shown me that yeah this apparent design really is it is intricate design and it is tremendous evidence for a creator yeah so there are publications out there that um people have published in secular journals showing uh intelligent designs that's incorrect but i know you've also experienced your even when you've published your own books christian books there's been pushback from people saying well you need to take your credentials off that book because they don't want that on it how often does that happen in academia when people try to suppress that information it sadly it happens very often it's been happening with intelligent design for probably over 20 years recently we have this kind of woke culture where it's happening in lots of other areas but in the area of creation it's been happening for a very long time so if you're an academic uh you're told you're not supposed to support intelligent design you're not supposed to put it on your website on your books on other things if isaac newton was here and the great finding scientists who were biblical creationists they would be amazed that we have this cancer or culture that we have this this vetting science should be open people should be allowed to be open with their what they're talking about so when i first produced books uh promoting intelligent design you know there were academics saying well you shouldn't put your academic qualifications on there where you work but i explained to them but i am a professor of engineering design i work on biomechanics it would almost be misleading if i the things i'm writing about come directly from my work in my lab so if i say if i wrote on my book you know this is nothing to do with my professional work that would be incorrect because it's everything to do with my work that i do every day in my lab uh it's it's happened to a lot of other people um but yeah people have tried to do that uh with me but generally i i i keep that information on the book because it is to do with my work yeah and and for people who who are watching stuart how has that helped your career or or or has it hindered your career that's an interesting question there are probably spiritual dimensions to that uh answer because i would my my answer would be that uh god's sovereignty does play a part in all of this it is important to honor god another thing i would say and this has been another big surprise in my working in academia i have been surprised at the number of non-christian academics who have supported me very strongly including some very senior people who've been my boss i think in engineering it's not so bad i've had a lot of support within the engineering faculty had i've been in a biology department i think things would be very different i know biologists who've had a very difficult time because the other biologists feel very threatened in that department so a lot depends on where you are and who the characters are around you you need a lot of wisdom um and patience but the thing about engineering is an organization like team gb their interest is a gold medal and a world record uh they're they're not so interested if you are slightly controversial person what they want is a gold medal so engineers tend to be very pragmatic yeah before um i'm going to wrap up in a minute with a final question for stupid so if anyone who's watching has a question a desperate question they want to ask about design and engineering then do type it in the comment section and we'll try and get to it but stu we've maybe touched on this a bit already the fact that often when we see in the media whether it's the bbc or american news media they'll often portray you know evolution this scientific fact um religious people have faith uh you know if you believe in creation or intelligent design that's a faith position is that is that a fair analysis of of the situation uh it's not it's a myth uh the creation debate is not science versus faith the creation debate is one world view versus another world view it's the world view with god against the world view without god it's wrong to label evolutionist science is wrong to label intelligent design as mere faith evolution requires faith there's not a shred of evidence that life could come from a chemical soup so you need faith if you want to believe in evolution it's it's a world view intelligent design is is not a faith position as i said the greatest scientist isaac newton james clark maxwell faraday lemming the list is is a very long list they were great scientists they had they had a biblical world view and it did not hinder their science one bit so it is a battle of world views it's not faith versus science and and you know intelligent design uh biblical creation it does require some faith but it's not blind faith we we have evidence and the evidence is before is before our eyes yeah it's a great answer and of course we know of many christian scientists leaders in their fields today now i'm going to take a couple of questions that i've seen come in i can see one from laram who has asked how far will mankind go with our technological advances how far will mankind go with technological advances obviously we've seen recently um space explorations um to mars nasa putting a number of rovers on mars um you know things in in artificial intelligence stuart how far can all this go uh first of all i think it's wonderful how we have such incredible technology um you know my friend andy mcintosh is a recipient of great technology fixing his heart and in biomedical engineering it's wonderful the scanners we have the mri scanners and so on and i think that's going to progress quite a lot but we do see a lot of exaggeration we're never going to make mars habitable there's a lot of exaggeration about that there's a lot of exaggeration about how far robots can go how much we can interface computers with humans one of the reasons for that exaggeration is people get a lot of funding a lot of grants if you make these wacky uh claims but it's i think those things are not very helpful it's not helpful to think that we could emigrate to mars or we might be able to put a computer chip in our head um i i think there's a lot of fanciful thinking about a lot of those uh things yeah a lot of it actually probably comes from the influence of watching too much star trek or sci-fi things on tv rather than coming from real science but there's a there's another question come in stuart from someone who's called themselves creation myth so that's interesting they've asked do you completely reject that evolutionary oh that question has gone down a bit evolutionary um processes are capable of generating novel biochemical cellular functional um or do you permit that that can happen to some degree okay it's a very useful question because there is some misunderstanding about for example adaptation and if i can just give the example of adaptation creationists absolutely fully agree and see there is adaptation for example darwin's finches the beaks can adapt a lot their feet other parts their body can adapt so changes can happen a lot we believe god has created that genetic potential for variation for adaptation but the key thing about darwin's finches is there are always finches they don't change into another kind of creature there are limits to adaptation a similar thing can happen on the bio molecular uh level uh it's it's a design feature in fact engineers do this with cars you build in adaptability and variability as a design feature and it's a clever design feature and it helps nature survive if things can change and adapt the same is true of viruses they can change and adapt but the key is it those changes are limited yeah um there's one last question probably that we'll take um from c bess and it's what is your favorite example of biomimetics in the real world so maybe they've just joined us but what is your favorite example stewart of biomimetics in the real world yeah my favorite example would be the one that i mentioned the wright brothers the first flying aeroplane is a wonderful story because the wright brothers were bicycle designers there was a huge um they were competing against huge companies and they couldn't believe that these two bicycle designers got there first and so it's a wonderful story but the reason they got there first is because they studied creation so the credit should go to the creator yeah amen indeed well stuart thank you so much for your time tonight i know um it's been a blessing to those that have been watching i can see that from comments in the chat section and um just a reminder to those that are watching professor burgess as well as 13 other speakers i think 13 other speakers will be joining us for an online mega conference in october and if you click on the link that you can see now on the screen that will be in the comments section that will take you um to to the conference where you can sign up and register and i think uh there is a slight fee with that but it's going to be a great three days of talks on creation science and the evidence for god so i'd encourage you to go to ukmega.org and sign up for that conference and as i mentioned at the beginning um professor stuart burgess's co-authored book with professor andy macintosh wonders of creation design in a fallen world is available at our answers in genesis store so just go to answers in genesis.org look at the store there and you will find that book i would recommend you get that for not only for yourself but for members of your family um or friends that really struggle with some of these questions that we've been talking about because that will really help them um with these things so stuart thanks again for being with us tonight yeah thanks good to be with you and thank you everyone um for watching so i'm going to say good night because it's night time for me or wherever you are in the world hope you have a great rest of the day goodbye

Channel: Answers in Genesis

Views: 3,553

Rating: 4.8883719 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: kmO9T7FRgts

Length: 43min 2sec (2582 seconds)

Published: Fri Sep 10 2021