3,500 years ago after the worldwide Flood of Noah's time, but long before the birth of Jesus Christ
God inspired Moses to record history - from the beginning.
These writings became the first five books of the Holy Bible's Old Testament.
Beginning with Genesis, the first book
Our history from Adam, the first man, to Abraham, with whom God established His covenant.
All leading to God's ultimate plan of redemption: a future new covenant, a New Testament, someday to come.
Genesis is the book of our origins, and our destiny. It's a destiny we cannot fully understand until we go back to the beginning.
They hijack science; they want to 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 for the powerful existence of an Intelligent Designer.
GENESIS
Part 1 -- "Paradise Lost"
The Bible begins with a statement that is so simple a child can understand it, yet so very deep:
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
You see, this argument over God's existence, and of Creation versus Evolution, is not so much a religious argument.
Rather, it is an ontological argument, that is, it's an argument concerning the very nature of reality.
It's not between science versus religion. No, 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, the Holy Bible, or instead is it man and man's opinions?
Really, we only have two possibilities.
Either the universe, and all of us, came about through a purely natural, physical process;
in other words, we just "happened" - or - Somebody (out there) made us.
I was taught in school that there was a "Big Bang," that there were millions of years, and man slowly evolved.
The theory of evolution, atheistic evolution, the Big Bang, and millions of years.
If we simply happened then there really is no right or wrong.
We could just live our lives the way we wish to, that has huge consequences.
Evolution has a lot of unintended consequences that I'm not sure everyone has thought about.
Evolution's beliefs 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.
If evolution is true, man is 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 is no reason for you to exist.
Where am I going when I die? You're going to go back into the ground and that is going to be it.
The lights are turned out on you. You die and become part of nothingness. You're worthless.
But instead if there is a God, and in particular the God of the Bible, then the world, all of reality, is altogether different!
I used to think that to believe the Bible meant you had to reject science.
I thought I had to have 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 cannot also be a scientist.
But there are thousands of PhD scientists all over the world who don't accept evolution.
And many of them don't accept the belief in millions of years.
I have four advanced educational degrees. Most evolutionist professors I've met have only three.
There is a small movement in the evolutionist community to try to get the doctoral degrees taken away from all professing creationists.
That's never going to happen but the fact that someone is trying speaks to the nature of the debate.
The secularists and the atheists took control of science and its beliefs.
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.
Also the main textbooks and the public schools in almost every country.
The secularists really have control of the educational system and they want
their religion of secularism, of atheism, and of naturalism forced upon the students.
They use political pressure. They use scare tactics. They use the courts as well.
They will intimidate school districts and take away their autonomy that is given to them by the US Constitution.
And if that's what they have to do, if you need laws to protect a theory from criticism, what does that tell you about the theory?
In America, there is no real 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, i.e. atheistic evolution.
They eliminate the supernatural. Their theory 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 from the womb of the Christian worldview.
Did you know that modern science was pretty much invented by people of faith, by Christians?
Think of Sir Isaac Newton. I think he needs a better public relations agent:
All most folks know is that he had an apple fall on his head and that he discovered gravity.
He was doing mathematical formulas to show that the idea of math and reason came directly from a logical Creator who invented the world.
Isaac Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, Faraday: These scientists were all 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 incredible 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.
Which makes more sense: a rational God who created a rational world that can be studied rationally;
Or - an irrational, meaningless process that somehow 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, they believe, and this is what we have?
Why would we have all these beautiful laws like F = ma or E = mc2?
In a secular worldview with things like the Big Bang, evolution, the millions of years,
and a naturalistic 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 the 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 a scientific fact. The "millions of years" is also not a scientific fact.
Evolution and its millions of years - is the greatest myth ever forced onto the minds of men.
The reason that most people believe it today is because they have been brainwashed.
Are we going to believe man's theories, when man wasn't there during the supposed millions and millions of years of Earth's history?
And who really just has t make up stories about what happened in the past?
When you start to buy into evolution, its millions of years, and some of those ideas,
you've then opened the door to say, "You don't have to trust the Bible completely."
If you can't trust the truth of Genesis 1-12, then why should you believe: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
That is a logical incoherence, because 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, and who we are, and 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 gives us the true beginning of history of the world.
The scientific evidence does not support evolution and millions of years.
Rather it confirms what Genesis says about a Great Flood of Noah, and about the age of the Earth.
God's Word is true from the very first verse.
And in this debate between Creation versus Evolution, Christians need to 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.
[Genesis 1:1-13] "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 He called, 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 Genesis, we have to ask:
What kind of text is this? What type of literature is this?
Is Genesis supposed to be poetry? ls 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 everything in six literal days, just like our days, about 6,000 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 1 and verse 2, you have to deal with the grammar of the text.
The Hebrew is very clear in the syntax and grammar.
Now, there are people who 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 first day, second day; 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 the seven day week 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 that 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. And then 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 any "seven millions-of-years" weeks, or something like that!
There is no way to harmonize evolution and its "millions of years" with the "days" in 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 millions or billions 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.
It is 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 atheistic creation myth.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, "On the Origin of Species."
It was a book that proposed a new theory on how life came to be on planet Earth.
This theory would strongly 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 1853 book, "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 "free the science from Moses".
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 even to deny the Holy Bible altogether.
I've had people say, "Well where did God come from? Who created God?"
On what page of Shakespeare's work: "Hamlet" do you find Shakespeare?
Shakespeare is not confined to his book. He's not present within 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 created: 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 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.
All to one place, which suggests that in the early Earth there was one land mass.
Just one continent later split up, we believe, during the Great Flood of Noah many years later.
It wasn't until the 1960s that geologists began to widely accept "continental drift."
This was a supposedly new idea that the continents of the Earth had broken up at sometime in the past and had slowly moved apart.
You've probably heard the name "Rodinia" or "Pangaea."
A super-continent on Earth, 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 He made the dry land to 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, all 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 have been 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 of the Atlantic Ocean opened up during the Flood; and the Indian Ocean opened up also, the transforming the Earth's surface.
It is impossible to walk away from the Biblical text thinking that this was some type of local Mesopotamian flood.
This was a Flood of universal proportions in its destruction of the Earth itself; its the destruction of all mankind.
The Bible tells us of a worldwide Flood.
One that radically changed the climate and devastated the continents, thousands of years before scientists would even propose ice ages.
The irony is 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, but they don't want to validate the Bible.
They will come up with any other explanation except 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 Hebrew words for the great deep, this immediately takes the reader back to Genesis 1:2, 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 seeds already in them.
Some people object to that and say, "But wait a minute: the plants were made on Day 3, but the sun wasn't made until Day 4.
How can you have plants without light from the sun?"
But you have light starting on Day 1: God said, "Let there be light."
We are not told where the light came from. Presumably, He had a source for light.
Light then exists independent of its source anyway, if you think about it.
And the Sun was made on Day 4 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 4, 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.
[Genesis 1:14-19] 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 for 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. They say, "Why does the universe appear to be designed?"
I read this book many years ago called "The Anthropic Principle." It's a huge book of over a thousand pages.
The authors draw this interesting story that the world appears to be designed.
When I got done, they said that it just appears to be designed; there really is no design there.
I'm thinking, you look at the evidence and then 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, it got covered by water, and then biological evolution happened.
But if that's the case, you have any number of problems.
According to evolutionary theory, or at least atheistic evolution theory, the Big Bang created everything.
Gas clouds went out everywhere, and stars contracted from gas clouds out of their gravity.
But it's impossible for stars to contract out of their gravity because as soon as you get a gas cloud that is compressed, it will heat up.
And hot gases want to expand, and that expansion force is 100x or more powerful than the force of gravity!
So it could never happen.
There are all these "the dog ate my homework" stories about how gravity waves came from black holes.
They 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 there have to be stars in the first place! There are many, many questions in science that have not been answered.
But there are also 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.
Matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed.
However the Big Bang insists that had to have happened at least once.
Many people think the universe popped into existence instantly in a Big Bang, and that it happened all by itself!
Somehow matter had spontaneously come into existence, without a prior cause.
They have some serious problems with the laws of nature.
I was speaking to the vice president of a group called: 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 any smart person be so easily fooled by such 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 says that things are currently running down; and 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.
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 instead: "the search for only 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 can see that they mesh fine.
It is the unbelievers who have the scientific problems, not us.
From a secular perspective, they can only get light about halfway across the universe.
That's why they have astronomical 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 by the end of Day 4.
We used to call that "the starlight problem."
The nearest galaxy to us is 1.5 - 2 million light years away, so wouldn't it take at least 1.5 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 dimensions "unfolded."
Some people take mentions in the Old Testament of God "stretching out the heavens" like a tent or a canopy
as Him stretching that light miraculously to get here.
Bible verses: "He stretches out the heavens as a tent upon a pole to dwell in,"
"He stretches out the heavens as a curtain", "He that arched the heavens", "He that bowed the heavens",
"He stretched out the heavens across the North place"...
All these Bible verses and many more indicate that the way that God did it was stretching.
The telescope has been around for hundreds of years.
It 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 the 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 has 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 Bible 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 scientific insights from the Bible, proclaimed at a time when some ancient cultures believed that the Earth was flat.
The Bible has always been - and shall ever be - validated by real science.
Edwin Hubble is credited with what many people think is perhaps the greatest discovery of astronomy in the twentieth century.
It's 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 1 .5 - 2 million light years in spatial displacement over that way.
It is also time-stretched. We are 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, 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 it's staring them in the face.
In astronomy, as in any other sciences, 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 where you would end up with just a blurry 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 there would not be 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: short period comets, and long period comets.
For short period comets, in only a couple hundred thousand years and they are all gone: There should not be any left.
For long period comets, tens of millions or maybe a hundred million years but they are also all gone.
So for a billions-of-years old solar system, you have a problem; but for 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 this is not a problem.
But if go back a couple billion to three billion years ago when life supposedly first 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.
So in billions of years, it's a problem; but in 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, creationist Dr. Russell Humphreys correctly calculated the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
That was several years before the Voyager 2 satellite would actually 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, volcanos, craters, mountains,
and other features showed the history of the planet as 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.
[Genesis 1:20-23] And God said
Let the waters bring forth abundantly, the moving creature that has life.
And birds that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales,
and every living creature that moves,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.
And every winged bird 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 birds 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 believed miracle. The 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, but without a miracle maker!
To believe that evolution is true, you will have to violate some of the main,
and most important principles and laws of science that have been agreed upon.
Not only does the atheistic evolutionary worldview violate the First Law of Thermodynamics
(so that's against a principle of science) but Louis Pasteur proved that "spontaneous generation" wasn't true.
But all evolutionists - every atheistic evolutionist - actually believes in the 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 only comes from life, not from non-life.
The law of biogenesis therefore 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 sorts of "origin of life" experiments,
where 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. Is that impressive? Ooohh.
It's not even meaningful information as far as real DNA is concerned.
Every evolutionary story starts with the famous "Miller-Urey Experiments" from the 1950s.
The best yields that they've ever gotten were 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 molecular problem of mirror images.
The odds for 250 chemical parts coming together is 2 X 10"476.
That is a 2 with 476 zeros following after it! 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
Those are the terrible odds for the first cell to even come into existence - all by itself!
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 there - and yet no life.
They will say, "That's an origin of life issue and I'm not going to 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,
(they believe) 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 but thinks that somebody else has bought 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" trick.
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 twentieth 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 are creatures that we would call dinosaurs today.
But the word "dinosaur" didn't exist until it was invented in 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 the 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 of creatures that today, in our modern world, we would call dinosaurs.
In Genesis, in chapter 1,we're told that on Day 6,
God created the beasts of the earth and everything that creeps 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 that Job would have known.
In fact, God specifically says that He made the behemoth along with mankind.
And it describes behemoth 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 of 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, when she was younger, came home from her kindergarten class
with 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 about 65 million years now.
You either start with what God has to say, or start 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.
A lot of people 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 have 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 century (1800s) that they started to use certain "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 invalid.
Remember this? The geologic column.
You were probably taught in school that each layer represents a different period of time, and it 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 up of sedimentary layers, which are rock layers that formed in water.
Geologists also confess that the Earth 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 Bible's Second Book of Peter? [2 Peter 3:5-9]
"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 that this rejection of truth would happen.
Fossils are actually not the evidence of the history of life.
They are 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 our highest mountains!
There are sea creatures on the tops of the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies. How did they get up there?
Creatures that don't have any hard parts; like fossilized worms.
Even fossilized animal manure; that's not going to 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 4.5 billion years old.
How do we know that it is 4.5 billion years?
Because it's only ever stated: "It's 4.5 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 maximum, 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 is 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 is 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 4 basic assumptions:
1. You somehow have to be able to estimate the original amount of the "parent" isotope.
2. You have to somehow calculate the original amount of the "daughter" isotope.
There are little detective-forensic ways, but no truly scientific method,
no rigorous ways to actually determine the beginning of that rock.
3. 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 a hundred years now.
We have learned that 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: 4. 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 that there are problems with every one of those four assumptions.
But if even just one of these assumptions doesn't go their way, then the entire possibility drops to zero.
There is no reason to trust that these methods are giving us the true age of the rocks.
I would play the lottery with my life savings rather 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 included 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."
Schweitzer can't explain it, and neither can her colleagues, who also cling to the evolutionary paradigm.
To illustrate the problem, let's travel back to the early 1700s:
That was a time when Biblical catastrophism was the accepted geological view.
If people then found a dinosaur bone (or a 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 that this was a creature that died
and was buried during or after the Flood, i.e. 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 time-scale 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 the lighter ones 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 clams or algae sorts 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?" That's the question evolution claims to answer but 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 also 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 within "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," or "after their kind" - not through any evolutionary processes.
You don't have one "kind" developing into another kind or sort. 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 in order to change it 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 tests of the scientific method. Evolution doesn't.
The fact of the matter is that 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 actually go against evolutionary thinking and make it more and more preposterous;
data that's against the evolutionary theory and actually makes it untrue.
The creationists are finding more and more ammunition in the new scientific data - not in theories - but in the data,
which prompted (NCSEs) Eugenie Scott to say that 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 scientist Bill Nye said, we really 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."
[Genesis 1:24-25] "And God said,
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beasts of the earth after his kind.
And it was so.
And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind.
And cattle after their kind.
And every thing that creeps upon the earth after his kind.
And God saw that it was good."
Evolutionists believe that approximately 5 million years ago,
humans and today's apes shared a common ancestor back at a biological "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 then 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) that 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 even 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 becoming 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.
If you start with God and His Word, then Anthropology 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.
Over time, one by one, all of the "missing link" fossils have been reclassified as either over to the human side or over to the monkey side.
Even "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis, discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973)
was dismissed by Johanson himself, saying that Lucy had 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: ls 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 if there are orbits (eye sockets) when viewed from the side.
Finally: cranial capacity. Lucy has a small brain by ape standards; never mind a much larger human-sized brain.
Lucy had a brain one-third the size of ours.
At full growth, as a full-grown female Lucy was only 65 pounds, 3.5 feet tall: This was a chimp.
As for the drawings and skeletal diagrams of her standing upright,
this probably would have been very unnatural and painful, the toe bones being curved even more than on a modern chimp,
and many other things about the fingers too.
Lucy had a "divergent big toe" as they are calling it now as they have discovered more of the fossils:
that means a thumb on the foot. Lucy was actually 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," whom 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 each other, 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? Clearly, it's an ape.
In fact, what is 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 is that 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 and controls our speaking) had a hypoglossal nerve
that was the same size in Neanderthals - as in modern people today.
Monkeys though have just a little, thin thread-like nerve.
They have the "hardware" but 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, however, 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 it there.
Even this nasal spine down here - which is found 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 cubic centimeters or more larger.
What would your conclusion be? ls 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.
Since the time that I was in college in the 1970s, 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.
In the average human today, the brain case is 1200 cubic centimeters.
But in Neanderthals, it was 1400 cubic centimeters.
We have their burial customs. We have their 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. But animals, like monkeys, don't bury their dead. Only humans do that.
The Neanderthals had art, religion, culture, language. Unquestionably human!
And yet, when I first bought this model of Neanderthal Man it was called a Homo sapiens, subspecies: Neanderthalensis.
In other words, they gave it a different subspecies name.
Today, the scientific name (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 modern humans 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 for the whole body, not just the skull.
The same experiment can be done with Neanderthals,
which evolutionists still 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, or 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 has 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, and Neanderthal Man...
Essentially, all of Homo erectus would be just human beings.
Don't just believe modern 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 back in Genesis.
And that means that there is no need for a Savior.
So, the secular anthropology not only attacks the authority of the Bible - it also attacks the very Gospel itself.
[Genesis 1:26] "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 creeps 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 said, "Australopithecus africanus." I said to the audience, "Okay..."
I stood up and I said, "Now we're going to learn about modern myths."
One of the common misconceptions that exists in society is 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 like these - 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 humans.
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 because their bodies look that much like ours.
If evolution was not true, and there is a Designer instead,
i.e. a Creator God who made those chromosomes in the beginning, then this is what it would look like.
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 in 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 at first 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 mankind to eat meat.
People didn't kill animals for food. Animals didn't rip each other up for food.
Both mankind 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 were originally 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, with us something went wrong.
And that flaw was sin that came into the world. Decay and death came as a result of man's disobedience.
So, if evolution is true, you have "millions of years" of death before man ever 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 that it was very good.
There was no death, and no disease or 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 also 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.
There were fossil insects as large as modern dogs, fossil birds with 25-foot wingspans, fossil trees nearly 900-feet tall.
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?
[Genesis 1:27-31] "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 fill the earth, and subdue it.
And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air.
And over every living thing that moves 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 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 everything that creeps 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 here, 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 into sin 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 that they did was try 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: He's going to send someone to bring forgiveness to this problem.
In fact, He immediately covered them. God comes and says that He covers our shame and He 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 demonstrate His invisible attributes everywhere.
So that everyone has evidence of Him. 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 has to be accounted for.
The God of the Bible is not only merciful and kind, but He is also 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 Great Flood. Did everybody die in the Flood? No.
Even though there was a judgment upon sin, the Lord God still sent a means of salvation.
That's a lesson for us today. The Great 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 Noah's Ark was spared.
Those not on board the Ark perished. The same is true in our day and age.
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 the penalty for sin.
He took the full penalty of death that should have been ours upon Himself and paid it in full, by Himself, for us.
And He wants you to come to Him and find His forgiveness.
That forgiveness was so costly that He came to Earth and put on matter Himself, and allowed Himself to be crucified.
A crown of thorns was pushed into 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 His only Son through it.
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, Jesus, as the "scape goat."
Jesus 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 Christ died for your sins, and my sins, and for the sins of the whole world.
We need Jesus Christ. He is the solution to the problem of sin.
That is indeed the Christian Gospel. That is indeed the Good News of the Bible.
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 human race; because we're all descendants of them.
We're all born with that sin nature and 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 we 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 (Adam) who brought death into the world, Jesus is the new man who brings life.
Just as there was Noah's Ark which had only one way in. Only one way of deliverance to save you from judgment.
So too, Jesus Christ comes and says, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life."
By coming to Jesus, although there is a future judgment coming, He has made a way of rescue from that judgment.
Just as Abraham had only one covenant son, Isaac, whom he was willing to sacrifice,
Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Promise, and our Heavenly Father was willing to sacrifice Him.
And then there's Joseph who was rejected, thrown into the pit, thought to be dead, but later found to be alive!
That sounds a lot like Jesus Christ in the Bible's 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 in 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 1, it's all about Jesus Christ.
We call Jesus Christ "The Word." He is "The Word of God." He is the way by which we can 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 creation that is in death,
that God invaded this world, and through the Cross opened up the doors of everlasting life for humanity.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is infinite, He became a man and died that infinite punishment that we all deserve.
The infinite Son took that infinite punishment from the infinite Father, and that satisfied the wrath of God.
Now the Lord God offers us the free gift of salvation as a result.
And that's the God whom I love. That's the God whom I want to know.
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 on my behalf. And that is the story of the Bible.
Jesus Christ, who walked the Earth as a man, is the One who loved us enough to take upon Himself our punishment.
To go to the Cross, to taste death, to shed His blood so 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 that terrible place: damned in Hell.
And so, we plead with people and say, listen, God is rich in mercy and He provided a Savior in Jesus Christ!
God became a human being. He suffered and died on the 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 resurrection of Jesus Christ.
What we are commanded to do is repent of our sins and trust only 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.