﻿1
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.