Genesis: Paradise Lost (2017) - full transcript

Subtitles by explosiveskull

3,500 years ago,

after the worldwide
flood of Noah's time,

before the birth of Christ,

God inspired Moses to record
history from the beginning.

These writings became
the first five books

of the Old Testament beginning
with Genesis, the first book,

testifying of a genealogy
of men, from Adam,

the first man, to Abraham,
with whom God established

his covenant leading to God's
ultimate plan of redemption,

a new covenant, yet to come.



It is the definitive book of
our origins and our destiny,

a destiny we cannot
fully understand

until we go back
to the beginning.

They hijack science, and
they convince the whole world

that science is only possible
within an atheistic worldview.

I have to ask the question.
How can you not believe

that somebody
designed all of this?

Obviously, the genius
of God's creative hand

screams of the existence
of an intelligent designer.

The Bible begins with a
statement that is so simple

a child can understand it,

yet so inexhaustibly profound,

"In the beginning, God created
the heaven and the earth."

You see, this argument
over God's existence,



or creation versus evolution,

is not so much a
religious argument,

rather, it is an
ontological argument,

that is, an argument concerning
the nature of reality.

It's not science
versus religion.

It's a worldview clash.

Two different views of origins

resulting in two totally
different worldviews that clash.

People are battling over
two different histories.

You either trust God,
or you trust man.

It really becomes
an issue of authority.

Who is the authority?

Is it God in his
Word, or is it man?

Really, we only have
two possibilities.

Either the universe, and
we, came about through,

a purely natural,
purely physical process,

we just happened,
or somebody made us.

I was really taught
that there was a big bang,

there were millions of
years, man slowly evolved.

Evolution, atheistic
evolution, big bang,

millions of years.

If we simply happened,

then there really is
no right or wrong.

We could really live our
lives the way we wished to,

and that's of huge consequence.

Evolution has a lot of
unintended consequences

that I'm not sure everyone
has thought about.

They relate to ethics.

They relate to whether
or not the world

is supposed to be good.

When you find yourself
struggling with evil,

you ought to ask yourself.

"Well, I thought the world
was supposed to be this way?

"If evolution is true,
then get used to it."

You see if evolution
is true, who am I?

You're nothing important.

You're just a
piece of protoplasm

that washed up from
the cosmic shores.

Man's just an animal.

We're Mother Nature's
science project.

Why am I here?

If evolution is true,

if nature is all there is,
there's no real purpose.

Might as well do
whatever you feel like.

If it feels good, do it!

You have no meaning.

There's no reason
for you to exist.

Where am I going when I die?

You're gonna go
back into the ground

and that is gonna be it.

The lights are turned out.

You die and become
part of nothingness.

You're worthless.

But if there is a God,

in particular the
God of the Bible,

then the world or reality,
is altogether different.

I thought to
believe in the Bible

meant you had to reject science.

I thought I had to
take a mental lobotomy

in order to start
believing the Bible.

We hear the mantra.

"All the scientists
believe in evolution."

Some people today
want to insist

that you can't do science
without believing in evolution.

In other words, if
you are a Creationist,

you are not classed
as a scientist.

There are thousands of PhD
scientists all over the world

who don't accept evolution,

and many of them don't
accept the millions of years.

I do have four degrees.

Most evolutionists I've
met have only three.

There is a small movement in
the evolutionist community

to try to get the
doctoral degrees rescinded

from all professing
creationists.

That's never gonna happen,

but the fact that
someone is trying

speaks of the nature
of the debate.

The secularists and the
atheists took control of science.

They took control of
all the science journals

and all the university
science programs.

They have taken
over the museums.

They have taken over
the state schools.

They have taken over
the universities.

The textbooks, the public
schools, in every country.

The secularists
really have control

of the educational system
and they want their religion

of secularism, of
atheism, of naturalism

forced upon the students.

They use political pressure.

They use scare tactics.

They use the ACLU.

They will intimidate
school districts

and take away their autonomy

that is given to them
by the constitution.

And if that's what
they have to do,

if you need laws to protect
your scientific theory

from criticism, what does that
tell you about your theory?

In America, there is no
separation of Church and State

because the State is forcing
a religion on generations

of kids, and that is that
everything can be explained

by natural processes only.

They eliminate the supernatural.

That is a religion.

It is a religion of atheism.

They hijack science, and
they convince the whole world

that science is only possible
within an atheistic worldview.

Even though modern science
was born in the womb

of the Christian worldview.

Do you know that science
was pretty much invented

by people of faith?

Think of Isaac Newton.

I think he needs
a better PR agent.

All we know is that
he had an apple fall

on his head and
discovered gravity.

He was always trying to
do mathematical formulas

and show that the idea
of math and reason

came directly from a creator
who invented the world.

Isaac Newton, Boyle,
Pasteur, Faraday.

These guys were
Bible-believing Christians.

Johannes Kepler, who
pretty much invented

modern astronomy, he
didn't see any problem

between science
and the scriptures.

Most of the early scientists
were not materialists.

Most of the early scientists

were theists who believed
that there was a God

who had created everything

and the reason that we could
understand the created world

was that there was a
mind, an intelligence,

behind the material world.

We need to acknowledge
that there is a creator God

who put in place
an orderly universe

to allow us to
understand science.

What makes more sense.

A rational God who
created a rational world

that can be studied
rationally, or an irrational,

meaningless process
created a rational world

that can be studied rationally?

It doesn't even make sense.

In a secularized world where
there is no right and wrong,

everything just exploded
and this is what we have?

Why would we have all
these beautiful laws

like F=ma or E=mc squared?

In a secular worldview
with things like big bang,

evolution, millions of
years, origin of life,

those are not scientific.

A lot of people have
been duped into believing

that they are, but they're not.

For example, is big bang
observable and repeatable?

No.

Is millions of years
observable and repeatable?

No.

Origin of life.

Has anybody ever made
life from non-life?

No.

Evolution is not
scientific fact.

The millions of years
is not scientific fact.

Evolution and millions of
years is the greatest myth

ever forced on the minds of men.

The reason that everybody
believes it is because

they have been brainwashed.

Are we gonna believe
man, who wasn't there

during the supposed millions
and millions of years

of Earth's history,
and who really just has

to make up stories about
what happened in the past?

When you start buying into
evolution, millions of years,

and some of those ideas, as
soon as you've done that,

you've opened the door to say,

"You don't have to trust
the Bible completely."

If you can't believe
Genesis one through 12,

why should you believe
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

That is a logical incoherence.

Now you're picking and choosing
which scriptures to believe.

Hypocrisy in the Church
is the greatest deterrent

to turning people to
Christ and to confidence

in the written word, from
Genesis to Revelation.

Genesis is so important
because it's the foundation

of who God is, who we are,
why is the world broken?

Why do bad things
happen to good people?

And why do good things
sometimes happen to bad people?

And does anyone have a fix?

All this gets related
to us in Genesis.

Genesis is giving us the
true history of the world.

The scientific evidence

does not support evolution
and millions of years.

It confirms what Genesis says,

about a flood, about
the age of the Earth.

God's Word is true from
the very first verse.

And we need to, in this debate
of creation versus evolution,

always be standing on
the truth of God's Word.

Stand firm on the
authority of the Word of God,

starting with the
very first verse.

"In the beginning
God created the heaven

"and the earth.

"And the earth was without
form, and void, and

"darkness was upon
the face of the deep.

"And the spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters.

"And God said, 'Let
there be light.'

"And there was light.

"And God saw the light,
that it was good.

"And God divided the
light from the darkness.

"And God called the light day,

"and the darkness
he called night.

"And the evening and the
morning were the first day.

"And God said, 'Let
there be a firmament

"in the midst of the waters, '

"and let it divide the
waters from the waters.

"And God made the firmament,

"and divided the waters

"which were under the firmament

"from the waters which
were above the firmament."

"And it was so.

"And God called the
firmament Heaven.

"And the evening and the
morning were the second day.

"And God said, 'Let the
waters under the heaven

"be gathered together
unto one place,

"and let the dry land appear.'

"And it was so.

"And God called
the dry land Earth,

"and the gathering together
of the waters called he seas.

"And God saw that it was good.

"And God said, 'Let the
earth bring forth grass,

"the herb yielding seed, and
the fruit tree yielding fruit

"after his kind, whose seed
is in itself, upon the earth.'

"And it was so.

"And the earth
brought forth grass,

"and herb yielding
seed after his kind,

"and the tree yielding fruit,
whose seed was in itself,

"after his kind.

"And God saw that it was good.

"And the evening and the
morning were the third day."

When we read the first
chapter of the Torah,

we have to ask, what
kind of text is this?

What type of literature is this?

Is Genesis supposed
to be poetry?

Is it supposed to
be an allegory?

Don't forget that
Genesis is written

in historical narrative Hebrew,
not in lyrical poetic form.

It is written in
historical style,

and it's meant to be taken...

As straightforward,
literal history.

The Bible clearly says that God
created in six literal days,

just like our days,
about 6000 years ago.

Jesus Christ himself
referred to Genesis

on multiple occasions,

each time referring to
Genesis as real history.

There are some people who
approach the biblical text today

and they view it
through the lens

of modern scientific
interpretations.

For example, they try to
insert millions of years

in between the first
two verses of scripture.

Now in order to add millions
of years in between verse one

and verse two, you have
to deal with the grammar

of the text.

The Hebrew is very clear
in the syntax and grammar.

Now, people can say
they don't believe it,

but no one can say that
the Hebrew word yom

doesn't mean a 24-hour day
right there where it says a day,

and then it says
day one, day two,

and at the end, the fifth
day and the sixth day.

Each of those days
was an ordinary,

approximately 24-hour day.

In fact, that is
why in Exodus 20:11

God said he made
everything in six days

and rested for one, as a
basis for the seven-day week.

You see it actually
comes from the Bible.

It doesn't come from
any other worldview.

It doesn't come from
any other religion.

It doesn't come from
astronomical science.

We have this seven-day
cycle we call the week,

and there is no
astronomical basis for this.

It's something that is fairly
universal among cultures,

but we find it's given to
us in the first few chapters

of Genesis.

You have the six
days of Creation.

On the seventh day, God rested.

God made everything
in six days.

He rested for one.

That is why we have
a seven-day week,

that's where it comes from.

We don't have seven
millions of years weeks,

or something like that!

There is no way to
harmonize evolution

and millions of
years with Genesis 1.

If you try to make
that order of the events

of the Creation Week match
with evolutionary principles,

it can't.

If the days were really
bazillions of years,

how could the plants go for
a million years with no sun?

They might have lasted
overnight, like the Bible says,

but not for a million years!

The plants could
survive just fine

for twelve hours
without sunlight.

If Genesis 1 was
just written by Moses

out of his own imagination,
he would never think

to put things in the
order that they are in,

completely contradictory
to the order

in which the evolutionists
say things happened.

They are in that order
because that's the order

in which God actually created,

knowing that people
would come along

and devise their
own creation myths

and that one day there
would be evolutionists

with their creation myth.

In 1859,
Charles Darwin published

On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection

or the Preservation
of Favoured Races

in the Struggle for Life,

a book that proposed
a new theory

on how life came to
be on planet Earth.

This theory would
contradict the Bible,

which had been the
predominant, trusted source

of ancient history in the
West up until that time.

Darwin was strongly
influenced by Charles Lyell's

The Principles of Geology.

Lyell, also
influenced by others,

reinterpreted geologic history

through gradual processes
over millions of years,

a concept known as
uniformitarianism.

This view was contrary
to catastrophism,

which teaches that
Noah's flood can explain

much of what we find
in the geologic record.

Lyell's motivation was to quote,

"free the science from
Moses," end quote.

Their ideas would soon
transform the culture

from one that largely trusted
in the biblical account

of history and its
implications for cosmology,

geology, and biology
to one that searched

for alternative
explanations for everything.

Did man evolve from animals?

Did the universe form itself
over billions of years?

Did dinosaurs go extinct
millions of years

before man was on the Earth?

Was there really
a worldwide flood?

These questions
would soon lead many

to either make compromises
with the Bible,

or deny it altogether.

I've had people say, "Well
where did God come from?

"Who created God?"

On what page of
Shakespeare's book Hamlet

do you find Shakespeare?

Shakespeare is not
confined to his book.

He's not in it,
he wrote the book.

He's not bound by his book,

and God is not bound
by his creation.

When you ask that question,
"Where did God come from?

or "Who created God,"

You are assuming
that time is absolute

and God showed up
on that timeline.

That is not the
God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible
is beyond all that.

God started time.

He wasn't created.

He is not bound by time.

God is that absolute!

Everyone knows,

"In the beginning God created
the heaven and the earth."

Heaven is space.

The earth is matter.

And then he said,
"Let there be light."

Most people know that
verse by heart too.

That's energy.

On the first day of the universe,
God creates space, time,

matter, and energy, all the
components of the universe.

And the only actual
matter in the universe

is the earth at the time,
standing in and out of the water.

Perhaps it was water that
the earth was made from

and water was actually the
first substance that God

actually made.

And so, we have
matter, space, time,

and energy being created on
the first day of the universe.

The second day is when
God actually separates

the waters above from
the waters below,

and then the expanse is there.

The third day, God then
brings forth the dry land.

He raises up the land surface.

So now you have the
first continent,

probably only one continent

because it says He gathered
the waters together.

To one place, which suggests
that in the early Earth

there was one land mass.

Just one continent,
split up, we believe,

during the flood later on.

It
wasn't until the 1960s

that geologists began to widely
accept continental drift,

a supposedly new idea that
proposed that the continents

of Earth had broken up
at sometime in the past

and had moved apart.

You've probably heard the
name Rodinia or Pangaea,

supercontinents in which all
the continents as we know them

were once connected together.

This is a concept that the
Bible already revealed thousands

of years earlier.

In 1858, Antonio
Snider-Pellegrini

proposed that the continents
had moved apart rapidly

during Noah's flood, in
a catastrophic process.

Genesis 1:9 states that
God gathered together

the waters into one place,
and made the dry land appear.

What the Bible had stated
all along, that the lands

were once connected
and then split apart,

geologists started teaching
thousands of years later.

Many people's
understanding of the flood

is the understanding they
acquired when they were

about four years old.

The flood was an
incredible catastrophe

almost beyond what the
human mind can comprehend.

This is a catastrophic event
of unimaginable proportions.

Sedimentation on a global
cataclysmic, catastrophic scale,

burying billions of
creatures suddenly

in unimaginable
amounts of sediment.

Look at all the fossils.

It's almost like the surface
of the Earth screams at us,

"Hey, there was a
catastrophic event!"

If something
like that happened,

what sort of evidence should
that have left behind?

Billions of dead things,

buried in rock layers
laid down by water,

all over the Earth!

Most of the fossil record

is a result of the flood,

not millions of years
of slow processes.

The fossil record documents

the reality of
the Genesis Flood.

It was also a
tectonic-catastrophe,

large-scale plate motion,
migration of the continents

by thousands of miles.

Which means that all
the Atlantic Ocean

opened up during the flood,

the Indian Ocean opened
up during the flood

transforming the
Earth's surface.

It is impossible to
walk away from the text

thinking that this was some type

of local Mesopotamian flood.

This was a flood of
universal proportion

in its destruction
of the Earth itself,

its destruction of all mankind.

The Bible tells
us of a worldwide Flood

that radically
changed the climate

and devastated the continents

thousands of years
before scientists

would even propose ice ages.

The irony being that
these same scientists

would confirm the possibility

of great global floods
on planets like Mars,

and yet still deny
that a global flood

was possible on Earth.

You see, the Bible
already stated

there was a worldwide flood,

and they don't want
to validate the Bible.

They'll come up with any other
explanation but the truth.

For 150 days, the waters
covered the mountains.

They prevailed over the Earth.

Five months of
torrential downpour rain,

of the fountains
of the great deep

being broken open
and gushing out water

from beneath as well.

The tehome rabbah,
the great deep,

which immediately
takes the reader back

to Genesis chapter
one, verse two,

where we have a
water-covered Earth.

Then on the third day,
God also makes the plants

and the trees of the field
with the fruit in them,

with seed already in them.

Some people object
to that and say,

"But wait a minute, the
plants were made on day three,

"but the sun wasn't
made until day four.

"How can you have plants
without light from the sun?"

But you have light on day one.

God said, "Let there be light."

We are not told where
the light came from.

Presumably, He had
a source for light.

Light exists independent
of its source anyway,

if you think about it.

And the sun was made on day four

to be the light-bearer
from that time onwards.

It's interesting.

In the Old Testament,
God warns the Israelites

not to worship the sun
like the pagans do.

And I believe one of the
reasons that God left the sun

until day four was to show that

he created the light and
that he sustains all of that.

The sun is just his tool,

so don't worship the sun.

Worship God, who made the sun.

"And God
said, 'Let there be lights

"in the firmament of the heaven

"to divide the day
from the night,

"and let them be for signs,

"and for seasons,

"and for days,

"and years.

"And let them be for lights
in the firmament of the heaven

"to give light upon the earth.'"

"And it was so.

"And God made two great lights,

"the greater light
to rule the day,

"and the lesser light
to rule the night.

"He made the stars also.

"And God set them
in the firmament

"of the heaven to give
light upon the earth,

"and to rule over the
day and over the night,

"and to divide the
light from the darkness.

"And God saw that it was good.

"And the evening and the
morning were the fourth day."

Astronomers typically
specialize in different fields.

Some will study planets,
some will study galaxies,

I happen to study stars.

Physicists and astronomers

have started asking
questions about this.

They say, "Why does the
universe appear to be designed?"

I read this book
many years ago called

The Anthropic Principle.

It's a tome of over
a thousand pages.

They draw this interesting story

that the world appears
to be designed.

When I got done, they said it
just appears to be designed,

there really is no design there.

I'm thinking, well, you
look at the evidence

and you deny that the
evidence is there.

How can you not believe that
somebody designed all of this?

The secular world says

that the big bang occurred
14 billion years ago.

Everything was
compacted into one spot.

It expanded, then the
stars formed themselves,

and then our sun formed, and
in the dust around the sun,

the Earth formed.

It was a hot molten blob,

got covered by water,

and then biological
evolution happened.

But if that's the case, you
have any number of problems.

According to evolution theory,

or at least atheist
evolution theory,

the big bang created everything,

gas clouds went everywhere,

and stars contracted from gas
clouds out of their gravity.

Well, it's impossible for
gas clouds to contract

out of their gravity because
as soon as you get a gas cloud

that compressed,
it's gonna heat up.

And hot gasses want to expand,

and that expansion force
is a hundred times or more

than the force of gravity.

It could never happen.

There are all these dog
ate my homework stories

about how gravity
waves from black holes

might do a push-pull
thing on gas clouds

and make this actually happen.

But you have a chicken
and the egg problem here,

because don't black
holes come from stars?

So you have to get stars
in the first place!

There are many, many
questions in science

that have not been answered.

But there are many questions
that have been answered.

So far, it is the problem
for the evolutionist

of the questions that
have been answered,

like the coalescence
of the stars,

like violating the first
law of thermodynamics,

that matter and energy cannot
be created or destroyed,

the big bang insists that
happened at least once.

Many people think the
universe popped into existence

instantly in a big bang,
and it happened by itself!

Somehow matter has
spontaneously come into existence

without a prior cause.

They have some problems
with the laws of nature.

I was speaking to
the Vice President

of the Darwin Coalition
once and I said,

"You all believe in
spontaneous generation!"

He said, "We do not!"

I said, "Yes you do.

"You believe it happened
at least once, don't you?"

Why would a smart person
be so easily fogged

and fooled by a dumb suggestion?

That actually his
theory does violate

the known discoveries
and laws of science.

We have two very
important concepts

in physics called the
first and second laws

of thermodynamics.

The first law says
that energy is neither

created nor destroyed.

And equally as valid
as the first law is...

The second law
of thermodynamics,

which sayst hings are
currently running down,

energy is becoming less useful.

The useful amount of
energy is always decreasing,

and we measure this with
a thing called entropy.

The entropy is
always increasing.

It's almost as if the world
was wound-up like a clock,

and it's been unwinding.

The second law would
seem to argue...

That the universe
has not always existed,

the material universe
has not always existed.

But the first law says you
could not have a beginning.

So, we have this contradiction.

We have this tension.

Both laws are equally true.

And yet both laws, if
extrapolated into the past,

contradict each other.

Physically, the universe
has no natural explanation,

it doesn't have a
physical explanation.

The other thing they've done
in our educational system,

they said that science
can only explain things

by natural processes.

They have even changed the
definition of science from

the study of the natural
world using the five senses

to be the search for
natural explanations.

But who decided that?

That's an arbitrary definition.

That specifically
excludes any possibility

of God being involved.

God has not only
been kicked out,

but he is treated
as most unwelcome.

They have totally changed
the methodology of science.

We need to bring
the worlds of science

and the Bible together
for people so they see

they mesh.

It's the unbelievers that
have a problem, not us.

From a secular perspective,
they can only get light

about halfway
across the universe.

That's why they have
inflation theories

and super-inflation
theories and so on,

because they have a problem.

They have a light
time-travel problem.

The problem is actually
worse that we sometimes think.

Alpha Centauri is more
than four light years away.

God had to get that light
here not in four years,

but actually at the
end of day four.

We used to call that
the starlight problem.

The nearest galaxy
to us is two million,

one and a half million
light years away,

wouldn't it take at least
one and a half million years

for that light to get here?

And yes, in straight
space, it would.

But even the big bang
theorists will say

that space and
dimension unfolded.

Some people want to take
mentions in the Old Testament

of God stretching out
the heavens like a tent

or a canopy, stretching that
light miraculously to get here.

"He stretches out the heavens

as a tent upon a
pole to dwell in.

"He stretches out the
heavens as a curtain.

"He then arched the heavens".

"He then bowed the heavens".

"He stretched out the heavens
across the North place".

All these verses and many more

indicate that the way that
God did it was stretching.

The
telescope has been around

for hundreds of years and has
played an instrumental role

in many of our greatest
discoveries about the universe.

Telescopes much larger
and more advanced

than these were used
in the early 1900s

to measure what became
known as red shift,

a form of measurement which
provided empirical evidence

that space was stretching.

This meant that
space-time itself

could actually be manipulated
as if it were fabric.

This understanding would
begin to bring answers

to some of the biggest
mysteries of the universe.

But this concept was
just a recognition

of what the Bible
already revealed.

In the books of
both Isaiah and Job,

God said he stretched out
the heavens like a curtain,

and that he created the
heavens and stretched them out.

These verses gave
us further insight

to the dimensionality of space

and showed us that the
universe has been stretched

since the beginning of Creation.

The implications of
this biblical concept

have been better
understood in modern times.

What's equally extraordinary
is that the Bible

also revealed that
the Earth is round

and that it floats in
space, hanging upon nothing.

Amazing insights
proclaimed at a time

when some ancient cultures
believed the Earth is flat.

The Bible has always
been, and shall ever be,

validated by real science.

Edwin Hubble is
credited with perhaps

the greatest
discovery, maybe one of

the greatest
discoveries of astronomy

in the 20th century.

The idea of what we call the
expansion of the universe.

And if it's expanding,
then you would expect more

distant objects to appear to
be moving farther away from us.

As the universe gets larger,

there should be a
relationship between distance

and that apparent
motion between us.

And we measure that
motion by the red shifts.

Now according to
Albert Einstein,

if you actually stretch
the fabric of space,

you will also essentially
and necessarily

have to stretch
the fabric of time.

So, Andromeda is not
just two million,

one and a half
million light years

in spatial displacement
over that way,

but also, it's also
time-stretched.

Yes, we're looking at
the galaxy of Andromeda

as it looked at a previous time.

But we are also
looking at a galaxy

that has experienced
more time than we have

if we are anywhere closer to
the center of the stretching.

William Tifft, who back
about forty years ago

discovered something
interesting in the red shifts

of galaxies.

The universe consists
of concentric shells

of galaxies, and we are
near the center of that.

If we are placed there
by God for some reason,

that's what you might expect.

Astronomers have more
or less ignored Tifft's

work over the years
and yet, actually,

it's staring them in the face.

In astronomy, as in
any other science,

I think there are evidences

that the world is far younger
than many people think.

Spiral galaxies would
be a good example.

They actually spin more
rapidly at the center,

and more slowly
out at the edges.

Obviously if this thing
spins around several times,

it starts smearing
out the spiral arms.

And as that happens,
you would spin it out

to the point, you would end up
with just an amorphous disk.

They think these
galaxies are at least

ten billion years
old, so these things

would be entirely smeared out.

But in six thousand years, not
much smearing taking place.

In billions of years,
it's a problem,

in thousands of
years, not a problem.

Comets really do have
something to say about the age

of the solar system.

We can divide comets
into two groups.

We call the short-period
comets and long period comets.

For short period comets,
a couple hundred years,

they're all gone.

There shouldn't be any left.

Long period comets,
tens of millions

or maybe a hundred
million years,

but they're all gone again.

So for a billions of
years solar system,

you have a problem, thousands
of years, not a problem.

We understand that the sun
is powered by nuclear fusion

and that could power the
sun for billions of years.

As it produces energy like
that, it changes its composition

inside and over time it
should slowly brighten.

And as it does, the
Earth would get warmer.

Now again, over thousands
of years, not a problem.

But if go back a couple billion,
three billion years or so

when life first supposedly
developed on the planet,

you have a problem
because the Earth

would have been far colder.

It would have been frozen, and
nobody thinks that happened.

In billions of years,
it's a problem,

thousands of years,
not a problem.

In fact, other
planets in our solar system

testify to a young
universe as well.

Both the density and
magnetic field of Mercury

cannot allow for
millions of years.

In 1984, Russell Humphreys
correctly calculated

the magnetic fields
of Uranus and Neptune

several years before
the Voyager 2 satellite

would measure them.

Humphreys used a vital
clue from the Bible,

that the universe was
made only 6,000 years ago.

And when the surface
of Venus was mapped

in the mid-nineties,
volcanoes, craters, mountains,

and other features showed
the history of the planet

was young.

Neptune is too hot to be old.

Pluto still has nitrogen
in its atmosphere.

The rings of Saturn and
Neptune aren't uniform,

as they would be after
millions of years.

So, do we trust in
the timeline of men,

who are repeatedly wrong and
having to change their beliefs?

Or do we trust in the Bible,

which has never been proven
wrong and does not change.

"And God said, 'Let the
waters bring forth abundantly

"the moving creature
that hath life,

"and fowl that may
fly above the earth

in the open firmament
of heaven.'"

"And God created great whales,

"and every living
creature that moveth,

"which the waters
brought forth abundantly,

"after their kind,

"and every winged
fowl after his kind.

"And God saw that it was good.

"And God blessed them, saying,

"'Be fruitful, and multiply,

"and fill the
waters in the seas,

"and let fowl multiply
in the earth.'

"And the evening and the
morning were the fifth day.

A lot of people will say,

"It just seems so hard
to believe the Bible

"because of all those
miracles and everything."

Well, the big bang is a miracle.

evolution of life would
have to be a miracle.

And the changing of that life

into all the origin of the
species all require violations

of the laws of science.

To believe that there is no God,

you will have to
believe in miracles

without a miracle maker!

To believe that
evolution is true,

you're gonna have to
violate some of the main,

most important principles
and laws of science

that have been agreed upon.

Not only does the atheist
evolutionary worldview

violate the first law
of thermodynamics,

so that's against a
principle of science,

but Louis Pasteur proved that

spontaneous
generation isn't true.

But all evolutionists,
every evolutionist

believes in spontaneous
generation of life!

This whole
evolutionary concept

that life came from non-life.

It actually violates
a law of science.

It is one of the
only laws in biology,

it's called the
law of biogenesis

and it states that life comes
from life, not non-life.

The law of biogenesis
that says that all life

comes from pre-existing life.

And yet evolution says that
life can come from non-life.

Surprise!

If you just wait long enough.

But we see no
examples of that today.

We can't observe it,
we can't repeat it,

people just believe it blindly.

Anytime they have
done these sort of

origin of life experiments,

6where they're trying to
take a soup, so to speak,

of all these
different molecules,

add a little bit of lightning...

Cook everything together,
add a spark, and out comes...

Tar.

They end up with gunk.

They have to do a lot of
tweaking to end up with...

Amino acids.

That's impressive, oooh.

It's not even
meaningful information

as far as DNA is concerned.

Every evolutionary
story starts with

the Miller-Urey experiment.

The best yields that
they've ever gotten

was 80% L-amino acids
and 20% D-amino acids.

That means that every
fifth amino acid

in a protein series would be
lethal to all forms of life

on our planet!

The evolutionists try to
get away from this problem

of chirality.

The odds for 250 parts
coming together is two times

10 raised to the 476th power.

That's going to be a two with
476 zeros following after it.

That's the odds for the first
cell to come into existence!

The best they've
been able to do

is the idea that the amino
acids assembled themselves

on the backs of floating
crystals in the ocean.

Their schemes and the
things they have tried

to imagine just don't work.

If you take the cell
and you poke a hole in it,

you have all the components
for the cell, and yet no life.

They will say, "That's
an origin of life issue

"and I'm not gonna
deal with that."

But you have to deal with
it, because there is no point

in dealing with any
of these other things

if you cannot even get an
organism in the first place.

The problems are exponential.

People in the field
actually know this,

but go along with it
anyway because, well,

after all, the other
disciplines of science

are where the real proof is.

So, the geologists think
that the real proof

is with the paleontologists.

The fossil-studiers think the
geophysicists have the proof.

The geophysicists think
it's the astrophysicists

that have the proof.

Everyone gets to the airport

and thinks that somebody
else brought the tickets!

They would never do this in
any other area of their lives.

They are denying the obvious

because of their starting
point that there is no God.

A lot of people are
enticed by this idea

because it takes God
out of the picture.

Here's another way in which
young people are being conned.

When they read their textbooks

and it's talking about
changes in finches' beaks

or changes you see in dogs,
the word evolution is used.

But then the word
evolution is also used

for molecules to man, so
it's a bait and switch.

Just like all the
other sequences,

like chimps gradually
turning into humans,

and this little Bambi-looking
thing turning into horses,

those kinds of things
that have been used

for evolution really don't
belong in the textbooks.

Alan Feduccia, the head of
Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill,

says that it will be the
paleontological embarrassment

of the 20th century,
the idea that birds

evolved from dinosaurs.

They are not a related
lineage at all.

I get the question of
dinosaurs all the time.

Consider dragons.

We see dragon legends in
cultures all over the world.

We find petroglyphs, cave
drawings and etchings,

and many of these
are images of dragons

and creatures that we
would call dinosaurs today.

The word dinosaur
didn't exist until 1841.

So before 1841, very
often the word dragon

would have been used.

Dragon is more of
an overarching term.

It would include flying
reptiles and sea reptiles,

as well as things
like dinosaurs.

Now when it comes to
evidence of dinosaurs

and man living at the same time,

believe it or not we
have an immense amount.

When we look at ancient histories
from various cultures...

We get very
detailed descriptions,

those are creatures that
today, in our modern world,

we would call dinosaurs.

In Genesis,
we're told that on day six,

God created the
beasts of the earth

and everything that
creepeth upon the earth.

This would of course
include dinosaurs.

In the past, dinosaurs were
simply known as dragons.

Even as late as the early 1900s,

dictionaries described
dragons as now rare

and a huge serpent.

Not only do we find
dinosaurs in cave drawings,

carvings of figurines, and
even in cultural legends

from the not-too-distant past,

but the Bible speaks
descriptively of creatures

that sound like dinosaurs.

In the book of Job, God tells
Job to behold the behemoth,

a creature Job would have known.

In fact, God
specifically says that

he made the behemoth
along with mankind,

and describes it
as having a tail

that sways like a cedar tree,
and bones as strong as iron.

He's so big that a raging
river is nothing to him.

The description of
this massive creature

fits the huge sauropod dinosaurs

we know from the fossil record.

The Bible describes
in great detail

a creature that sounds
just like a dinosaur,

thousands of years
before paleontologists

would rediscover
and rename them.

My daughter, came back
from her kindergarten class,

when she was younger,
she brought home a book

that said that dinosaurs
lived 100 million years ago.

That is just an assertion,
they are just saying it.

They didn't observe this,
you can't repeat this.

It is man-fallible,
imperfect men,

who separate man from dinosaurs

by somewhere in the
neighborhood of about

65 million years now.

You either start with
what God has to say

or with what man has to say.

God, who has always been there,

he is perfect and infallible
and he's the one who says...

That people and dinosaurs
walked the Earth together.

And a lot of people
kind of scoff at that,

but if you look back in history,

nobody scoffed at that
until recent times

when people started to buy
into this concept of millions

and billions of years.

One of the things
that really helps

to convince people of
the millions of years

is that chart of the
geological column,

where you see the rock layers

and then you've got #
the timeline on the side

with the millions of years.

And then you have the
bottom-dwelling sea creatures,

and then fish, and amphibians,
and reptiles, and dinosaurs,

and birds, and
mammals, and people.

How did that geological
column get developed?

It was back in the late 18th
and early 19th centuries

that they started to use
the fossils, certain fossils

called index fossils,
to date a rock layer.

"Oh, well that rock
layer is this old

"because we know
that the rock layers

"that have those
fossils are this old."

You might ask, "How did they
know how old the fossils were?"

Good question.

They didn't.

They were making an assumption
about the history of life.

That assumption is just invalid.

Remember this?

The geologic column.

You were probably
taught in school

that each layer represents
a different period of time,

and was deposited over
millions of years.

In reality, each layer
is simply showing

the order of how
things were buried.

Both land and sea
creatures alike

are found throughout
the geologic column.

Sea creatures are
found from the lowest

to the highest layers and
even on top of mountains.

In fact, 75% of the
Earth's land surface

is made of sedimentary layers

which are rock layers
formed in water.

Geologists also
confess that the world

is riddled with
massively eroded features

like the Grand
Canyon in America,

the Blyde River Canyon
in South Africa,

and the Capertee
Valley in Australia.

And yet, they still refuse to
acknowledge a worldwide flood.

Remember those prophetic
verses in the book of Peter?

"There shall come in
the last days scoffers

"who are willingly
ignorant that the Earth,

"being overflowed
with water, perished."

2,000 years ago, Peter warned us

this rejection of
truth would happen.

Fossils are actually
not the evidence

of the history of life.

It's the evidence of the death

of all life during Noah's flood,

and how all those
things got buried.

There are sea creatures all the
way through the rock record.

And we find sea
creatures on the tops of

all of our highest mountains!

There are sea creatures on
the tops of the Himalayas,

the Alps, the
Andes, the Rockies.

How did they get up there?

Creatures that don't
have any hard parts.

Fossil worms.

Fossil animal manure.

That's not gonna be
fossilized slowly

over hundreds or
thousands of years.

Those are some of the biblical
and scientific reasons

why we should not accept
those millions of years.

A lot of people think
that the biblical chronology

couldn't be true
because the Bible says

that the Earth is
6,000 years old.

That is very, very different

than saying that the
Earth is four and a half

billion years old.

How do we know that it's
four and a half billion years?

Because it's only ever stated.

"It's four and a
half billion years.

"We know that."

Well, how do you know that?

"Radioactive dating."

A lot of people think
that carbon dating

proves that the rocks are
millions of years old.

Carbon dating is never
used to date the rocks.

It is only used to date
former living things.

No evolutionist uses carbon-14

because even if it worked
the way they thought it did,

it can only go out
to 110,000 years max

even using the new accelerator
mass spectrometer method.

The half-life of carbon-14
is so short, only 5,730 years,

that you should not
find any carbon-14

in anything older
than 100,000 years,

which should not have even
one atom that we could detect.

The fact that people
are routinely finding

significant levels of C-14 in
all these different fossils

indicates something wrong
with the dating methods.

The half-life, the
decay rate, of carbon-14

is very short, so it's never
used to date the rocks.

It's the other methods.

Uranium changing into
lead, potassium into argon,

rubidium into strontium,

and they have really
long half-lives.

All of those,
including carbon-14,

depend on four
basic assumptions.

One, you somehow have
to be able to estimate

the original amount
of the parent isotope.

Two, you have to somehow
calculate the original amount

of the daughter isotope.

There are little
detective-forensic ways

but no truly scientific
method, rigorous ways

to actually determine the
beginning of that rock.

They also have to assume
that the rate at which,

for example, uranium
decays into lead,

has always been constant.

But they have only been
measuring the decay rates

for 100 years.

Pressure, magnetic
fields, and heat can change

the decay rates.

Radioactive lutetium decays
nine trillion times faster

in the plasma state, and
evolutionists, big bang theorists,

believe that the whole universe
began in a plasma state.

And one more.

You have to assume that
the sample has been

in a closed system
the entire time.

Scientists who are
well-informed on this issue,

with PhDs in
geology and physics,

they say there's problems

with every one of
those assumptions.

And even if one of these
assumptions doesn't go their way,

then the entire possibility
of the whole thing

drops to zero.

There's no reason
to trust that these

are giving us the
true age of the rocks.

I would rather
play the lottery

with my life savings than
bet on something like that!

In 2005,
Mary Schweitzer,

a paleontologist
and evolutionist,

made the first popularized
discovery of soft tissues

in a dinosaur bone, which
include blood vessels and cells,

DNA and proteins, all
of which decay quickly.

Mary Schweitzer herself said,

"This flies in the
face of everything

"we understand about how
tissues and cells degrade.

"I can't explain
it, to be honest."

Mary can't explain it and
neither can her colleagues,

who cling to the
evolutionary paradigm.

To illustrate the problem,

let's travel back
to the early 1700s,

a time when biblical
catastrophism

was the accepted
geological view.

If people then found a
dinosaur bone, or dragon bone,

as they may have called
it, with soft tissue

and remnants of blood still
in it, would they be confused?

Of course not.

They would simply conclude
this was a creature

that died and was buried

during or after the flood,

within the past
few thousand years.

Now let's fast-forward to today.

Would people be confused
to find the same thing

in a dinosaur bone?

Of course, many people would,

because the evidence we find

doesn't match the
evolutionary timescale

we've been conditioned
to believe.

Many textbooks say
that the peppered moth,

industrial melanism in
England, is evolution.

Well if that's all that
evolution is, I believe!

The dark-colored peppered
moths were more camouflaged

than the light-colored
peppered moths.

As a result, the birds could
see them and eat them for lunch

a lot easier.

It's not an evolutionary
event at all.

It's a natural selection event.

Natural selection means
to pick or choose,

to select from what
is already there,

traits that were already there,

genetic information
that was already there.

This process will never get
you from copepod sort of things

in the ocean turning into moths.

It will never get you from
monkeys turning into people.

This process can't make
one step in that direction.

Natural selection may
be able to explain

the survival of the fittest,

but it cannot explain the
arrival of the fittest.

How did we get moths
in the first place

is the question evolution
claims to answer

and cannot and does not.

Instead, they just go, "Look
at how the colors shifted."

Before the magic of evolution,

there were white
moths and black moths.

After the magic of evolution,

there were white
moths and black moths.

That would happen
if Darwin was wrong,

it doesn't have anything
to do with Darwin's theory.

The types of changes
that we're seeing

that lead to
variation with kinds

are not the types of changes
that are required by evolution.

There is variation
within the kind,

but not the evolution of one
kind becoming another kind.

In the creation account,
it says that God created,

according to their
kind, after their kind,

not through
evolutionary processes.

You don't have one kind
developing into another kind.

They are all created
according to their kind.

So even though
you get variety,

they are not changing
into other things.

Bacteria are not changing
into more complex creatures.

Yes, you can have great
variation within a kind.

You can get different
species forming,

which is what Darwin really saw.

But there are limits.

There are no mechanisms
there at all in genetics

to add in new information
that never existed

to change that into a
totally different kind.

Dogs always remain dogs.

Cats always remain cats.

There is nothing in
observational science

to contradict that.

Every animal will bring
forth after its own kind.

You can observe that in
the existing creation

and in the fossil record.

Genesis passes the
scientific method.

evolution doesn't.

The fact of the matter is

the information is stronger
than it has ever been.

In the past five years there
has been a quantum jump

in the data, the new discoveries

that actually go against
evolutionary thinking

and make it more and
more preposterous,

against evolutionary theory
and actually make it untrue.

The creationists are finding
more and more ammunition

in the new scientific data,

not in theories in the data,

which prompted
Eugenie Scott to say,

"Facts are a dime a dozen,

"theories are what
matter in science."

You know what?

It is unbelievable what
unbelievers have to believe

to be unbelievers!

Come to me when you
can show me the money.

Do you have facts or not?

Do you have data?

Do you have observations?

Do you have the
scientific method or not?

Contrary to what Bill Nye said,

we should tell our children
what our beliefs are and why.

We should not just say, "This
is what to believe, Johnny."

but say, "Here is
why we believe this

"and it's not just faith.

"We have science.

"It's really on our side."

"And God said,

"'Let the earth bring
forth the living creature

"after his kind,

"cattle, and creeping thing,

"and beast of the
Earth after his kind.'

"And it was so.

"And God made the beast of
the Earth after his kind,

"and cattle after their kind,

"and every thing that
creepeth upon the Earth

"after his kind.

"And God saw that it was good.

Evolutionists believe
that approximately

five million years ago,

humans and today's apes
shared a common ancestor

back at a fork in the road.

That creature is often referred

to as an ape-like creature.

They don't like
to call it an ape

because they will argue
that this creature

evolved into apes,
and apes evolving

into apes is not impressive.

I'm prepared to accept
that ape-like creatures

produced apes.

I have a little
trouble with the idea

that ape-like creatures
became humans,

and of course that's the
whole realm of the ape-men.

Most people are
taught anthropology

from a secular
worldview nowadays.

And when they do
that, they are taught

an entirely different history.

People are taught,
and I was taught this

when I went to school as well,

I was taught, "Hey, we evolved
from some ape-like ancestor

"out of Africa.

"They migrated out of
Africa to the Middle East.

"We got a little bit smarter.

"We went from hunters and
gatherers to become farmers.

"Then after that we
developed some civilizations.

"We see Mesopotamia, or
Egypt, or the Indus Valley,

things like that.

"Then people got smarter

"and we were able to
start building boats

"and going around
to different places.

"And all of the sudden,

"we see places like the
Roman Empire pop up.

"Then we transfer all
the way up to England,

"becomes one of the most
powerful nations on Earth.

"Then we transfer
over to the Americas.

"And here we are."

That's the kind of anthropology
that we were taught.

But if you go back 200 years ago

and look at anthropology
from that perspective

and for the 2,000 years before
that, nobody believed that.

That is actually a
relatively new idea

based on an
evolutionary worldview.

Anthropology, if you start
with God and his word,

starts with Adam and Eve.

God creates Adam and Eve!

You see, what the Bible
says, what Genesis says,

is that on the sixth day of
the world, God made two humans.

He made a whole
bunch of monkeys.

He never made any monkey-humans,

but that's what they are always
looking for in the fossils.

And one by one, all of
the different so-called

missing link fossils
have been reclassified

as either over to the human
side or over to the monkey side.

Lucy, Lucy, the
Australopithecus afarensis,

discovered by Donald Johanson
in 1973, Johanson himself

said, "Lucy has really
been dethroned."

Meet Lucy.

The nasal bones do not protrude.

Do you notice any slope
at all to the face?

Of course.

Compare the zygomatic
arch to the slope.

Clearly, ape-like.

What about the forehead.

Is it flat or curved?

Absolutely flat.

When we look from the side,

the bone comes way out
on this flat forehead.

And it is very
difficult to see whether

there are orbits or eye sockets

viewed from the side.

Finally, cranial capacity.

Lucy has a small brain by ape
standards, nevermind human.

Lucy had a brain
one-third the size of ours.

At full growth, as a full-grown
woman, only 65 pounds,

three and a half feet tall.

This was a chimp.

And the drawings and
the skeletal diagrams

of her standing upright,

this probably would have been
very unnatural and painful

knowing what we know now about
the toe bones being curved

more than on a modern
chimp, and many other things

about the fingers too.

With a divergent big toe, is
what they're calling it now

as they have discovered
more of the fossils.

That means a thumb on the foot.

Lucy was a chimp!

The quest for the
elusive missing-link fossil

between ape-like
creatures and humans

has given rise to some
of the grossest examples

of evolutionary
propaganda to date.

Lucy, who they claim is
our distant relative,

is perhaps the worst.

To see why, let's
isolate a scanned replica

of the Lucy skull, as
evolutionists have imagined it,

and place it next to the
skull of a modern chimpanzee.

What becomes
immediately apparent

is that the two skulls
are nearly identical,

with the exception that Lucy's
brain cavity is even smaller.

To fuller illustrate this,

let's pass the Lucy skull
into the chimpanzee skull.

With the two skulls now
on top of one another,

it seems incredibly
clear that Lucy

was just a type of chimpanzee.

To further illustrate the point,

let's now pass the Lucy skull
into that of a modern human.

To be gracious, even
if we scale Lucy up,

she still doesn't come
close to being human.

What would your conclusion
be on a creature like this?

I mean, clearly, it's an ape.

In fact, what's Lucy's
scientific name?

Australopithecus.

That means southern ape.

Whatever else we could say
about Lucy, she is an ape.

Let's look at another
presumed ancestor of man,

or a pre-homo sapiens.

It's neanderthal Man.

The problem with neanderthals,

when I was in college,
they taught us that

they were the missing link

and that they
could barely grunt.

And now we found out that
the hypoglossal canal,

a hole at the base of the
skull where a nerve goes out

to the mouth, so
controls our speaking,

the hypoglossal nerve is the
same size in neanderthals

as in modern people today.

Monkeys have just a little,
thin thread-like nerve.

They have the hardware,

they just don't have
the software drivers

to actually talk.

They think, they have thoughts
and probably emotions,

but they just can't
do that like we can.

Neanderthals
obviously could talk.

We have every bone in
neanderthal man's body.

There's not a missing bone.

So, we know that the
nasal bone is protruded,

just as you see them there.

Even this nasal spine down here,

which is just under your nose,

the nasal spine is not
found on apes either.

So, we have the spine and
we have the protruding nose.

What about the
slope of the face?

Perpendicular.

What about the curvature
of the forehead?

It's curved enough
that you can see

into the orbits quite
easily from the side.

Finally, cranial capacity.

If you compare this skull

to an adult modern human skull,

it's about 100 CCs
or more, larger.

What would your conclusion be?

Is this an ape or
is this a human?

It's obviously a human.

But if it's a human,

we expect to find more
than just simply the bones.

We expect some cultural
evidence, and we have that.

We've found, since the
time that I was in college

in the '70s, we've found
turquoise and pink-colored

flax fibers in
neanderthal caves.

They liked colorful clothing.

They were built better than us.

They also had bigger
brains than us.

The average human today,

the braincase is 1200
cubic centimeters.

In neanderthals, 1400
cubic centimeters.

We have burial customs.

We have tools of
all different kinds.

They were good hunters.

They had strategies.

They took women on
their hunting trips.

One evolutionist actually said

that might be why
they went extinct.

Recently, they've found what
is arguably a cosmetics kit,

a couple of scallop shells
unhinged with pigments in them.

They have found what
appear to be flutes

with holes in positions
to be playable

buried with neanderthal man.

We found a musical instrument,

a bare bone with holes
drilled in it like a flute.

I don't know if you've ever
heard a monkey play a flute,

but it really doesn't work.

We find flowers buried in
the graves of their dead.

Animals, monkeys,
don't bury their dead.

Humans do that.

They had art, religion,
culture, language.

Unquestionably human.

And yet, when I first
bought this model of

neanderthal man, it was
called Homo-sapiens subspecies

neanderthalensis.

In other words, they gave it
a different subspecies name.

Today, the scientific
designation, the classification,

for neanderthal man

is homo-sapiens
neanderthalensis.

And that third word is
actually the designation

of the variety of
humans that it is.

We are now classified
as homo-sapiens sapiens.

So what creation has been
saying all along is true.

Neanderthals were people too!

100% human.

And that's true, by the
way, of the whole body,

not just the skull.

The same experiment

can be done with neanderthals,

which evolutionists
claim is another branch

in the transition
from apes to humans.

Let's place the skull
of a neanderthal

next to the skull
of a modern human.

The Neanderthal has the
same facial structures.

We all know that everyone
has a uniquely-shaped skull.

Some people have larger heads,

some have wider cheek bones,

broader jaws and brow ridges,

more slope to their foreheads.

With the right combination
of these traits

that we see in people today,

it is easy to see how a
neanderthal is simply a human.

Everyone's been told that
there are dozens and dozens

of these solid
missing-link fossils,

transitional forms,
so and so man,

and Java Man,

and Piltdown Man,

and...

Cro-Magnon Man,
neanderthal man.

Essentially, all of Homo-erectus
would be just human beings.

Don't just believe
urban myths of the proofs

of evolution like junk DNA,
like missing-link fossils.

The secular world
teaches that you evolved

from some ape-like ancestor,
that there was no Adam and Eve.

And since there's
no Adam and Eve,

then there was no fall into sin,

which means that there
is no need for a savior.

So, see, the
secular anthropology

not only attacks the
authority of the Bible,

but it attacks the
very gospel itself.

"And God said,

"'Let us make man

"in our image,

"after our likeness.

"And let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea,

"and over the fowl of the air,

"and over the cattle,

"and over all the earth,

"and over every creeping
thing that creepeth

"upon the earth."

I was debating the student
Atheist Club president

at the College of New Jersey.

He made the statement
in his closing comments

that there were
dozens of fossils

that proved the transition
from simians to humans.

And I said,

"Now, you said that there
were dozens of fossils.

"Can you name one?"

He said, "Well, the
literature is just replete."

Blah blah blah.

"There are so many."

And I said, "I
didn't ask for many.

"I just asked you for one.

"Just tell the audience one."

And he went, "Well,
Australopithecus africanus."

I said to the audience, "Okay."

I stood up and I said,

"Now we're gonna learn
about urban myths."

One of the common
misconceptions

that exists in society
is that they say

that humans and chimps
are 99% similar.

I am very disillusioned
by the idea

of using a percentage to
describe how similar humans

and chimps are.

You cannot use a
percent similarity

to describe common ancestry!

One of the
most popular misconceptions

held by evolutionists is that
birds evolved from dinosaurs.

What proof do they
have, you might ask?

Well, just look at their
similar design, they might say,

pointing out that both
birds and some dinosaurs

have hollow bones.

But common features
can also be understood

as evidence for a
common designer,

who didn't need to
reinvent the wheel

every time He
created a new kind.

Humans and frogs both have five
digits on their lower limbs,

but that doesn't
mean frogs and humans

share a common ancestor,

unless you believe
fairy tales, of course!

It's not too surprising
that our chromosomes

look a lot the same
as a chimpanzee's.

Of all other living
things, their biochemistry,

their physiology, and
their body structures

look the most like us.

Their DNA ought to look
the most like ours too.

For goodness sake,
bananas have DNA

that is 50% the same as ours.

So, monkeys should
have 80, 90, 98%

the same DNA.

Their bodies look
that much like ours.

If evolution was not true
and there is a designer,

a creator God who
made those chromosomes

in the beginning, this is
what it would look like.

When you start
looking at the genome

and the DNA differences
and you try to figure out,

how different are we?

What makes humans different
from everything else?

This image of God as the
Latin phrase Imago Dei.

What does that mean?

We're not animals.

We're different
from the animals.

Human beings have court systems.

We believe in justice and
truth and righteousness

because we are made
in the image of God.

We are moral creations.

When you read
through Genesis 1,

it comes to the pinnacle
at the very end.

Humans are created, and
behold, it was very good.

Now when God says that
something is very good,

how good is it?

It was a perfect creation
where there was no death.

God made the world perfect.

There was no
death or bloodshed

according to Genesis 1:29, 30.

Originally, all of the
animals were vegetarian

and mankind was vegetarian.

We weren't allowed to eat
meat until after the flood.

That's when God first
permitted man to eat meat.

People didn't kill
animals for food.

Animals didn't rip
each other up for food.

Man and the animals
were vegetarian.

For those who don't
believe God's word,

they're living in the present

and they look around
and see death,

so they assume that death
has always been here.

When I look at the human body,

I see something that
looks like it was designed

to last forever because we
keep turning over our parts.

That's the way our body is.

We're created to live forever.

If your car was
operating the way we do,

where all the parts
kept turning over,

then you scratch the
paint and it heals,

how long would your car last?

It would last forever.

So, something went wrong.

And that flaw was sin
that came into the world.

Death came as a result
of man's disobedience.

So, if evolution is true,

you have millions of years
of death before man sinned

to bring about death?

We really have a huge
theological problem

if we accept those
millions of years.

If we accept the
millions of years,

then we are accepting
millions of years

of death and bloodshed
and disease and violence,

all before man
comes on the scene.

But the Bible says that
God created the world

at the beginning and
it was very good.

There was no death and
disease and natural disasters.

It was sin that brought
that death and natural evil

into the world.

What was the
world like in the beginning?

The Bible describes the
early Earth as paradise,

a lush and beautiful
world from pole to pole,

a world where man, animals,
and plants of all kinds

lived in perfect harmony,

a world without sickness,
disease, pain, or death.

This golden age of the past,

reported to us
accurately in the Bible,

is remembered in the
legends of human cultures

throughout our history,
where man and animals

grew to be larger and live
much longer than we do today.

Scientific discoveries
reveal fossil representatives

of every major kind
of plant and animal

that are many times larger

than their present-day
counterparts.

Fossil insects as
large as modern dogs,

fossil birds with
25-foot wingspans,

and fish as big as our
modern whales to name a few.

Today, Earth is not
paradise anymore.

So, we must ask, when
was paradise lost?

And why?

And will we ever see it again?

"So God created man

"in his own image,

"in the image of
God created he him.

"Male and female
created he them.

"And God blessed them,

"and God said unto them,

"'Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the Earth,

"and subdue it.

"And have dominion over
the fish of the sea,

"and over the fowl of the air,

"and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth.'

"And God said, 'Behold,
I have given you

"every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face

"of all the earth,
and every tree,

"in the which is the fruit
of a tree-yielding seed,

"to you it shall be for meat.

"And to every
beast of the earth,

"and to every fowl of the air,

"and to every thing that
creepeth upon the earth,

"wherein there is life,

"I have given every
green herb for meat.'

"And it was so.

"And God saw everything
that he had made,

"and, behold, it was very good.

"And the evening and the
morning were the sixth day.

Every civilization
has a story,

a story of who God
is, who we are,

why the world is
the way that it is.

What the Bible offers is not
just a story but the story.

It tells us why we're important.

It also tells us why
the world is broken.

Why do we all get so frustrated
that things shouldn't be

this way when
we're at a funeral?

Why do we find ourselves saying,

"Why do bad things
happen to good people?"

And, "Why do good things
happen to bad people?"

Genesis explains that.

The fall was a real
spiritual and historical event.

Real people in history
actually violated a law of God,

that caused our entire race
and the creation to fall.

When Adam and Eve
sinned against God,

God cursed the ground,
he cursed the animals,

and he sentenced man to die.

Everything changed.

They realized that
they were naked.

They realized that
they were ashamed,

and the first thing, they
tried to cover themselves.

But those coverings
were not good enough.

The punishment
for sin was death,

so the solution had
to involve death.

At the very beginning,

when Adam and Eve are
making their first mistakes

and shame and guilt are
coming into the equation,

God immediately gives
them a solution.

"I'm gonna send someone
who's gonna bring

"forgiveness to this problem.

"In fact, I will
immediately cover you."

God comes and says
he covers our shame

and forgives our guilt.

The reality of the world
is the fact that God exists,

and that we are separated
from God by sin.

We sin by nature.

We sin by choice.

You can agree with
everything I say.

You can believe that the world

is only thousands of years old

and you can think
that God created it.

But if you believe
that God exists,

but that's as far as it goes,
you've missed the point.

You looked at the billboard,

you've seen the ad, but
you've missed the point.

The point is this,

it's about a
relationship with him,

restoring that
relationship with him.

And the God of the
universe loved us enough

to say, "I wanna demonstrate
my invisible attributes

"everywhere, so that
everyone has evidence of me,

"wherever you live, in
whatever time period you live,

"through the telescope
or the microscope."

And he's calling out to you to
have a relationship with him.

It's not good enough
to just believe in God.

What good does it do if you
lead somebody to believe

in an intelligent designer
who is vaguely defined?

We need to respond
to the creator

and he has spoken
uniquely in his word.

And he has told us in the Bible

how we can be restored to a
right relationship with God.

God is indeed a God of love,

but he is also the
righteous judge

and sin must be accounted for.

The God of the Bible is
not only merciful and kind,

but he is holy and just.

And every time we sin,
we store up his wrath

that will be revealed
on the Day of Judgment.

God has appointed a day in
which he will judge the world

in righteousness.

You are a moral creation.

You have to give
an account to God

for every idle
word you've spoken,

every deed done in darkness

will be brought
out into the light.

And if that happens
on Judgment Day

and you're found guilty,

the Bible says that
you're heading for Hell.

But look at the flood.

Did everybody die in the flood?

No.

Even though there was
a judgment upon sin,

the lord still sent
a means of salvation.

You know what, that's
a lesson for us today.

The Flood was God's judgment.

But at the same that
judgment was there,

he provided an ark of salvation.

For those people in that day,

there was a means of escape.

Everybody on board
that boat was spared.

Those not on board
the boat perished.

The same in our day,

as God provides for us
an Ark of salvation.

His name is Jesus Christ.

God loves us and He has
provided a way of salvation,

to the point that he sent
his own son into the world

to satisfy God's condition of
death as a penalty for sin.

He took the penalty
of death upon himself

that should have been ours

and paid it in full,
by himself, for us.

He wants you to come to
him and find forgiveness.

That forgiveness was so costly

that he came to Earth and
put on matter himself,

and allowed Himself
to be crucified.

A crown to be pushed
upon his head.

Nails like railroad spikes
were pounded into his wrists

and into his feet.

And he did that not
because he had to.

He did that because
he loved you.

And he knew that if he didn't,

if there was any other way...

If there was any other
way, if it wasn't necessary,

then God would not have
put through his only son.

He wouldn't have
turned his back on him

and allowed the
sin of all humans,

past, present, and future,

to be laid upon his
son as the scapegoat.

He had to go to the cross.

He had to be crucified.

He had to die one of
the most grueling deaths

known in the history of mankind.

And so, Jesus died for
your sins and my sins

and the sins of the whole world.

We need Jesus Christ.

He is the solution to
the problem of sin.

That is indeed the gospel.

That is indeed the good news.

But it's only good news

because it's based on
the bad news in Genesis

because of what
Adam and Eve did.

And because we're all one race,

because we're all
descendants of them,

we're all born with that sin
nature, that tendency to sin.

If there wasn't
an original sin,

if we aren't born into sin
and in need of a savior,

if we are born okay,

then maybe we could just be good

and wouldn't need
Jesus to die for us.

But that's just not reality.

It's not good theology.

It isn't even good logic.

Just as God made one
man who brought death,

Jesus is the new
man who brings life.

Just as there was an
ark, and in that ark

you find that there's one way in

and that one way is
the way of deliverance

that will save
you from judgment.

And so too, Jesus
comes and says,

"I am the way and the
truth and the life.

"And by coming to me, there
is a future judgment coming,

"But I have made a way
to rescue you from that."

Just as Abraham had
only one begotten son

whom he was willing
to sacrifice,

Jesus is the only begotten son

that our heavenly father
was willing to sacrifice.

And then there's Joseph
who was rejected,

thrown into the pit,
thought to be dead,

later found resurrected.

Sounds a lot like someone
in the New Testament!

And then we move into the Exodus

and we see that he is
the ultimate Deliverer,

He's the ultimate Passover,

he's the ultimate lawgiver.

Jesus is all over Genesis

and the deeper you look into it,

the more you find
that the whole book

points directly to him.

And so right here in
Genesis, chapter one,

it's all about Jesus Christ.

We call Jesus Christ
himself the word.

He is the word of God.

He is the way by
which we know God.

Who has ever had his
name used as a cuss word?

Nobody, except Jesus Christ.

He said, "The world hates me

"because I testify of its
deeds, that they are evil."

And so, we use his
name in blasphemy,

the name that is
above all names.

We lust, we lie, we steal.

That's why we have suffering,
disease, pain, and death.

But, it gives great hope for
this fallen creations in death

that God invaded this
world and through the cross

opened up the doors of
everlasting life for humanity.

Jesus Christ is the son
of God who is infinite.

He became a man and he died
the infinite punishment

that we all deserve.

The infinite son took
the infinite punishment

from the infinite father,

and that satisfied
the wrath of God.

And the Lord offers the free
gift of salvation as a result.

And that's the God who I love.

That's the God whom
I want to know.

And I want to know him
because he loved me enough

not just to sort of
watch from a distance

and love everybody.

He loved me enough
to get in the game

and to die in my behalf.

And that is the
story of the Bible.

Jesus Christ, who
walked the Earth as a man,

who loved us enough
to take upon himself

our punishment, to go to
the cross, to taste death,

to shed his blood

that we could be with
him in heaven forever.

Those who reject him spend
eternity separated from God.

What a horror
that any human being

could end up in a terrible
place, damned in Hell.

And so, we plead
with people and say,

"Look, God is rich in mercy

"and He provided a
savior in Jesus Christ!

"God became a human being and
suffered and died on a cross

"to take the punishment
for the sin of the world.

"We broke God's law and
Jesus paid our fine."

It's as simple as that.

If someone pays your
fine, the judge can say,

"You're out of here.

"Your case is dismissed!"

That is what God can
do for you and I.

Our sins can be washed away!

God can commute
our death sentence

and let us live forever

because of the suffering,
death, and the resurrection

of Jesus Christ.

What we are commanded to
do is repent of our sins

and trust alone in Jesus.

Anyone who would repent,
who would turn from their sin,

who would say,
"God, I'm a sinner.

"I deserve Your judgment,

"but I put my trust in Jesus
Christ as my Lord and Savior."

That person can be forgiven
and restored to a right

relationship with the creator.

We have to believe in
the true and living God

who is the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And we need to trust in
him for our salvation.

Subtitles by explosiveskull