Debunking Human Evolution with Dan Biddle, Phd

So we're gonna record and stream, and we've got that going.

So, okay. I'm Terri Camerisel, and I'm here on behalf of Creation Fellowship Santee.

We're a group of friends bound by our common agreement that the creation account, as told in Genesis, is a true depiction of how

God created the world and all life in just six days, about 6 ,000 years ago.

We've been meeting on this online platform since May of 2020, and we've been blessed by almost 80 speakers who have covered a blend of creation science, other theology, and even current event topics.

You can find links to most of the videos of those presentations by visiting our webpage, which is tinyurl .com

forward slash cfsantee, that's c like creation, f like fellowship, santee is spelled s -a -n -t -e -e.

And while you're on that page, which has a list of our upcoming speakers, you can also click on the archives link to take you to all of our past speakers.

And if you'd like, you can email us at creationfellowshipsantee at gmail .com so that you get on our email list.

We promise not to spam you, but we will send you emails, inviting you to all of our upcoming speakers.

Tonight, we are definitely doing a creation science presentation. We're thrilled to have with us

Dan Biddle. He's the president of Genesis Apologetics, which is an organization dedicated to training youth pastors, parents, and students about Genesis creation and the flood.

Dan has authored or edited nine books and several articles on these topics.

He's also produced two films, including one called Genesis Impact, and he's getting ready to release another one in theaters this

December about Noah's flood. Hopefully he'll tell us a little more about that as well.

Dan is also a behavioral scientist and has extensive experience as an expert witness in courts, especially testifying on the scientific method.

So with that, we're excited to have him with us. He's very knowledgeable about this topic.

And so with that, Dan, I'm going to give it over to you. All right. Well, thank you very much.

How are we doing on the audio visuals? Everything look okay so far? Yeah. Great.

Okay. When you're to share your screen, your presentation. Great. I will do that right now. Okay. And share the sound.

Okay. You guys should see it now, huh? Yes. It's good to go.

Okay. Terrific. All right. Well, thank you very much for having me tonight. I want to start out with a little prop here.

If you guys can see this okay. Any idea what this is?

This is a piece of your back. This is a stack of four vertebrae.

And you can see all the wonderful cushions that we have in between our vertebrae. And you look at the back and you have all these nice facets.

And then you have all these tubes that are perfectly aligned through which you've got veins that come through here and nerves and ligaments and tendons all connecting this wonderful system.

And if you have to go to the chiropractor, when any of these things get a little kink, a little bit twisted, right?

But if you just look at this amazing, amazing design, it becomes very, very apparent that we are created and we are designed.

And all it takes is just a little, you grab your garbage can wrong or do something heavy or jerk on a door wrong or whatever and you get a little kink and it's just a reminder how intricately and beautifully we are made.

Because this is construction and this is engineered. And so we're talking about human evolution tonight.

And it's just profound when you start looking at something like this. Romans 1 says that creation makes known the creator.

And we'll be going over that a little bit more tonight. But it just is really obvious to the human mind when we look at something like this that there has to be an engineer.

It has to be a designer. It's too stacked. It's too symmetrical. It's too perfect.

There's systems and designs that are going on in here that just do not erupt out of chaos.

So it's a very amazing design. So we're going to be looking at some of those more features tonight.

I think we're going to be looking at the eye and the ear a little bit more. But we're also going to be taking the best case that evolutionists have for evolution, for human evolution, and stripping it down to its very, very constituent parts and then taking it out by its knees.

Because it's a very, very weak theory and evolutionists have admitted that.

That's an incredibly weak theory and I think it's much more sensible and rational to believe that we're engineered and we're designed.

Not only that designed as creatures, but we're designed as a dominion stewards over God's creation.

So we were the very last things that were created in God's creation that God commissioned us to take dominion over everything, to name everything, and then to be stewards over all of the earth.

And that's why humans are distinct. We're the only things that are made in the image of God. So we're very, very special in that way.

So let's go through the slide deck here with just a few introductory slides.

So a little bit about our ministry. Yes, we do produce a lot of different movies. There's a list of some of them.

They're available on Vimeo and Amazon Prime and Christian Films.

There's all kinds of YouTube places that you can also go watch these videos. They're all free. If you just go to our main website, which is genesisapologetics .com,

you can see links for all of these movies. We spend a lot of our time producing content on YouTube.

That's probably our largest territorial reach. We have viewers all over the world, about 175 ,000 subscribers now.

We just crossed over 20 million views collectively, but we also speak a lot locally to schools and churches.

We have an annual conference called g1conference .com that is held at William Jessup University, which is

Northern California's largest Christian university. I usually have at least 500 people there, and we're having this one next year,

February 10th, I believe is our next conference. We have an online offering called the

Student Zone, again, accessible by our main website, where our vice president puts out tons of content.

I think he's up to 31 different library or different videos now in his library that are all designed for K -8.

So if you have students who want to learn about creation, Genesis, the flood, dinosaurs, just go to our

Student Zone and Dave has about 31 videos. They're all between 5 and 15 minutes long, but they're all designed for the kiddos.

He does a great job at breaking it all down and keeping it interesting for them. For a little bit older kids, for 5th to 10th grade, we have our debunk evolution .com,

where we take the leading arguments that are used in public schools, namely like life science class, early earth history, or what they call world history, or ancient civilizations.

They teach evolution in any number of those different classes. And we have a skit series that takes the top 10 theories or topics of evolution and debunks them one at a time with very entertaining videos.

And for older kids, 11th grade and higher, we recommend our Seven Myths program because we go over the seven primary false teachings that students are likely to encounter in college, and even some

Christian colleges still teach these false teachings, like God didn't create recently, or Moses didn't produce the

Torah, or Noah's flood was only local, or the Epic of Gilgamesh is a myth just like the

Bible's mythical account. So we take these seven myths that you're going to encounter in college and debunk them to strengthen their faith before they go away to college.

And our top book is one called Answers to the Top 50 Questions about Genesis, Creation, and Noah's Flood.

You can download this book free on our website. We get hundreds of questions every year, and we developed this book a few years ago by taking and compiling those hundreds and hundreds of questions we typically get and developed baked answers for the top 50.

And most of these Q &As in this book will also point to videos that will address these topics.

So it's a great book for students and parents alike. And if you're handy with the phone, which of course most of us are nowadays, you can download our mobile app called

Genesis Apologetics because we have over 120 ,000 installations. And this app will plumb right into a lot of our key videos on our

YouTube channel, Genesis Apologetics. And yes, we do have our movie coming out.

We learned yesterday that it will be released in the theaters March 20th. So that's good news for us.

We had to fit it in the Fathom schedule there. We'll probably have a final of the movie burned by December, but it will be out in the theaters in March.

So please go to noasflood .com and sign up for announcements of when that movie will be coming out in the theaters and links for tickets and things like that.

But right now it looks like March 20th and 21st, at least a two -day release by Fathom. And tonight we're going to be racing through all kinds of top evidences by just trimming along the tops of the trees.

But we have a movie called Genesis Impact. You can just go to genesisimpact .com where we really belabor a lot of these points.

We look into the lead icons that are used to push the theory of evolution to students nowadays.

We look at Homo habilis and Lucy and Homo erectus and Neanderthal. And we really dive deeper into some of these icons in that movie in a fun, entertaining way where a

Christian college gal is able to very cordially and in a very meek fashion dialogue with a museum docent.

Of course it's all dramatized, but it's done in a very Christ -like manner where she addresses these top pillars of evolution with a museum docent.

And let's start out with what God's word says about evolution and its consequences.

And I'm going to go ahead and read this just so we're all on the same page here. I'll move this around here.

Okay, so Romans 1 says this, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse.

Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened, professing themselves to be wise.

They became fools and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like a corruptible man and to birds and four -footed beasts and creeping things.

So this section of scripture says that if you turn away from the obvious creator, you're going to be automatically cursed with starting to invent new forms of God, four -footed beasts and birds and image of made things like corruptible man, like what is scripture talking about here?

Well, if a person turns their worship away from God, they're going to automatically worship something else, because that's what this the way that human beings are.

And in this case, it says that people are going to turn their worship or their affection towards things like birds and four -footed beasts and creeping things.

Well, I would say if you're going to turn towards something and worship it, you're attributing your origins to it, or you're worshiping it at something higher than you are.

So in some way, this passage in Romans 1, in a very discreet way, I believe is suggesting that people will turn to the idea of evolution, thinking that we came from creatures like this.

This is Schrodinger. This is actually the mammal, the rat -like creature that evolutionists teach and believe that humans evolved from.

Allegedly, 65 to 67 million years ago, they believed that the

Chicxulub asteroid landed in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico and caused a global extinction where the dinosaurs went extinct.

But they actually think that this little rat -like creature and all of his cousins and brothers and sisters crawled two to three feet underground and avoided the calamity of the smoke and the fire and the dust and the fallout from this thing and thus preserved the mammal

DNA set, gene set, which eventually led from four -footed creatures that looked like rats.

And eventually, they turned into bigger things that were a little bit hunched over. Then they turned into bipedal hominids and eventually turned into humans.

So they've affectionately called this little creature Schrodinger, but that's what they believe we evolved from.

So here we say, look at this, they're going to be turning their worship or their affection or their origins attribution from four -footed beasts and creeping things.

And that's exactly what they've done. So in fact, you can go to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D .C.

and look right here in the middle of the museum in their Hall of Human Evolution. They have a shrine room, a little shrine room that's been set up that says, come in here and meet one of your oldest relatives.

And they're on these wall panels. They have this idea of vertical evolution going up over millions of years.

But take a look in the middle of this picture here, this little shrine altar.

I wonder what's on this little shrine altar that people are worshipping or attributing their origins to.

When we zoom up, here you have it. It's just a little golden rat that they believe humans evolved from.

So we're living in a day where Romans 1 is manifest right before our eyes, where people are attributing origin or giving their worship to rats rather than an almighty creator

God who spoke us out of nothing, breathed us into existence, put the soul, the nefesh into us and drew us from the dust of the earth and made us in his own image, gave us commission to take dominion over the earth and caused us to name everything.

So we're definitely not evolved from these little mammal -like rats. But isn't it interesting how they've enshrined this thing in gold?

So here we have another passage in which he's speaking in Matthew 19, where he summarizes

Genesis 1 and 2. And he says, here's what happened here. The Pharisees came up to him, tempting him and saying to him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?

And he answered and said unto them, have you not read? So Jesus throws back to the authoritative word of God and says, have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the twain shall become one flesh.

So in this one passage, we have Jesus saying that that humans were created recently because they were created at the beginning of the creation.

We have gender clarity, we have marriage, and we have sex. All in one little paragraph,

Jesus summarizes Genesis 1 and 2 and says, look, God spoke them out of nothing.

It happened recently at the beginning of creation. And the two are supposed to have marriage. And through that covenant, we're going to have family.

And that's how Christ summarized Genesis 1 and 2. And here we have another thing that's very interesting.

When people ask me, well, Dan, why do you believe in a young earth? I says, well, my gosh, it's simple. You just need three chapters in the

Bible. And I don't know how you could not believe in a young earth. It's all inspired scripture.

And so in just one chapter of the gospel, Luke chapter three, we have 77 named patriarchs that go all the way from Christ and connect them back to Adam.

And that's significant because you have to have Christ as the second Adam who redeemed the faults and the fall of the first Adam.

And you have to have them genealogically connected. Their DNA are shared because what rights would

Christ have to redeem the world if he couldn't link himself back to the first man who caused the fall to happen and sin to enter into the earth?

So here's what that paragraph looks like longer. But here we have real history. Now, Jesus himself began his ministry about 30 years of age, being the son of, and here we go, a whole list of 77 some patriarchs.

And it goes back at the very end here. You say that the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

So you can't take this last four words here with this comma and jam in 194 ,000 years worth of evolution because most evolutionists would say, yeah, we think the

Homo sapiens popped into existence about 200 ,000 years ago. Some would have it as early as 60 ,000 years ago.

Most would say at least 100 ,000 years ago. So somehow compromised Christians take this passage and find a convenient way to jam in an extra 194 ,000 years into this timeline.

But what we have here instead is a clear timeline mapping back about 4 ,000 years of history between Christ and Adam, who is the son of God.

And notice there's no room in there between the son of Adam and the son of God to put in, you know, millions of years worth of Neanderthals or Homo erectus or anything else.

Adam came directly from God. And so we have this line that goes back from Jesus all the way through these patriarchs or King David, all the way up to Abraham, back to Noah, and then through the 10 patriarchs that lead all the way back to Adam.

So we can't somehow jam an extra 194 some thousand years into this timeline.

It just can't be done. So we don't want to have Jesus evolving from these many different, this plethora of icons that people believe humans evolved from.

It's a disgrace and it disparages the character of God. Okay, so let's look at a quick video here.

I don't know if you're speaking in this video, but this summarizes how creation really serves as the foundation of the gospel.

Without a real Adam, a real garden, a real tree, and a real enemy that led Adam and Eve into sin, the consequences for sin laid out in Genesis 3 has no foundation.

And without this, the gospel and the entire New Testament has nothing to stand on. Because of the sin nature we inherited from Adam, we are all in need of a

Savior. That's the very foundation of the gospel and the New Testament. Could you guys hear that okay?

Yes, we did. That was great. Okay, perfect. Great. Okay, that'll mean the other videos will have audio as well.

So, you know, even evolutionists recognize this. They say, look, they say no

Adam and Eve means no need for a Savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous literal truth.

It is completely unreliable because it all begins with a myth and builds on that as a basis.

No fall of man means no need for atonement and no need for a Redeemer. And it's no surprise to any of us,

I think, on this call today that you can walk into a lot of Christian colleges and find the idea that Adam was a mythical person.

And evolutionists are saying right here, all we need is a mythical Adam and the whole

Bible and gospel goes away. And I would say that they're right. If there was no real Adam, the

Bible begins quickly unraveling. In fact, I was just at a college a while ago and they had a placard right up there next to the bookstore.

This is where Adam and Eve, real people, come over here to this talk. So it is sad that we're living in a time where that's actually being contested.

Okay, so let's review the evidence for human evolution and see how it stands up here.

So evidence number, actually, we're going to review it first, reviewing the evidence that supports the creation account in Genesis.

So evidence one is that we have interdependent, obviously engineered, simultaneously assembled body parts that could not come together without intelligence.

So it's kind of like a lock and a key. What good is a lock tumbler, like your deadbolt on your house, without a key?

The key is designed for the lock and the lock is designed for the key. The two go hand in hand.

Well, what about your starting system for a car? You see, if you have to have an alternator, then you have to have the flywheel to start the car.

You've got a starter. You've got to have the wires. You've got to have the battery. We can't take any of these components out or the whole thing won't work.

If you don't have a starter, it doesn't work. If you don't have a battery, it doesn't work. This is an interdependent system that requires an engineer to assemble, because all five of these independent parts have to be assembled in an orderly way for a starting system to work.

It just can't evolve by itself, because we have five very complex items that are bolted together in a systematic order for this car to work.

Well, do you know it's the same thing with your ear? In fact, when I speak in an evolutionist setting, sometimes at secular colleges,

I say, look, I can disprove the theory of evolution in just one minute, and that usually gets people's attention.

I say, look, I could get this garbage pail here and fill it with mud and electricity and stir it for billions of years, and it will never engineer multi -component systems that require intelligence to be assembled.

That's exactly what the human hearing system does, because we have the pinna, which is the external ear canal, which is designed for trapping sound waves.

As people are speaking in a room and they're pushing around air molecules, our ears are actually designed to trap and capture sound.

Then they go down the ear canal and bounce around that little tympanic membrane known as our eardrum that wiggles three little tiny bones, the smallest bones in the human body.

That actually works in a lever. It's actually a machine because it leverages the little vibrations that are hitting your eardrum by a factor of 1 .7,

so it increases efficiency. Then that's pushing, it's bolted onto your cochlea, which is charged with hydraulic fluid, and that again upsamples the sound waves by a factor of 22 times.

We go from leverage, which jacks up the sound amplitude, if you will, by 1 .7, then it goes from air into a hydraulic system, which upsamples it again 22 times.

That then converts to a chemical signal that then converts to an electrical signal. We have five different machinery things here going on that are all assembled in a sensible way to take sound waves, turning it into a mechanical process with these tiny little bones, and upsampling at 1 .7

times into a hydraulic platform, kicking it up another 22 times to a chemical electrical system into a chemical system in your mind.

No one in their right mind would actually think that this is going to arise by itself because you can't take these five components and switch them out of order.

Even if evolution could make something like an external ear canal or a pinna, you'd have to then bolt it onto four other systems in a systematic order for the whole thing to make sense.

We're not seeing chaos here, we're seeing collective engineering and intelligence.

Of course, there's not much data loss through this entire five different systems. DNA design is another amazing thing.

We'll look at a couple of videos here that will summarize the DNA evidence. All of our body has this

DNA in it. We have three billion base pairs that are inside of our bodies that are coding for this.

Take a look at what it looks like when I show this DNA. We're going to look at a quick clip here and then we're going to look at DNA replication and see what that looks like.

It's just fascinating. Over 10 ,000 DNA molecules can fit on the head of a pin and unfolding just one of them reveals six feet of instructions capable of building who you are.

Stretching out DNA in the trillions of cells in your body could reach to the sun and back hundreds of times.

Look at this next video that shows what it looks like when you replicate DNA. We have billions of these molecular machines inside of our body that are going on right now stripping apart

DNA with a copying mechanism. This is at the microscopic molecular level and that just demands intelligence.

It's a system, it's a machine that was intelligently designed. Here's another one called gene transcription.

This is how your genes are copied and again look at this. It's a machine that's going on in your body right now over and over and over again transcribing the genetic code going from DNA into RNA.

Just fascinating, fascinating systems and there's no chance that things like this just invent themselves because it's a machine that has working parts that requires a designer.

So that's just a quick tour through DNA. I want to look at one aspect of our

DNA known as mitochondrial DNA and we'll take a look at the mutations that happen here with a short video.

Let's see, it doesn't look like that video is going to play here but I'll just summarize by talking through it.

This is a very interesting thing that they just discovered over the last 10 years that evolutionists used to think, well they still think, but they used to assert with science on their side that we would expect that there to be about one mutation in our mitochondrial

DNA every 6 to 12 ,000 years because they inferred that's about how many mutations we would need to go all the way back to a chimp -like creature 6 to 7 million years ago.

But then they did a study by taking a look at how quickly our mitochondrial DNA actually mutates and it's much, much faster.

One mutation every 33 and here's what they learned. This is actually in the science journals now.

It's repeated in several different places. Here's a quick clip here. It says this, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate, which is what they learned.

For example, researchers have calculated that mitochondrial Eve, the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people, lived 100 ,000 to 200 ,000 years ago in Africa.

But using this new clock, she would be a mere 6 ,000 years old. So isn't it interesting that they happen to find that when you look at the actual observed mutation rate in our mitochondrial

DNA, it sets a timeline back to the first woman about 6 ,000 years ago.

Fascinating. Now we've all heard this. We have, you know, our DNA shares are 98 % similar to chimps.

But you do know that while they took that clip, they really took it out of context. Because yes, our

DNA shares about 98 % of the same DNA with chimps. If you discard 18 % of their genome and 25 % of ours, cherry pick the strands of our

DNA that are identical and overlap them, then we're of course about 98 % similar.

But when they made that comparison, they threw away about a quarter of our

DNA and didn't include it in the comparison and about a fifth of the chimp genome.

So again, a strong false representation there that addresses that idea that we are 98 % similar to chimps.

Definitely not the case. Let's look at this now. I have a friend of mine who is the number two chief medical officer in a huge hospital chain here in Northern California.

I asked him one day, he's a creationist, he believes in God's word, and I said, well, what's your number one proof that humans are created, not evolved?

He batted right back and said, well, that's easy. Blood coagulation. I said, well, what do you mean?

Well, Dan, there's five separate steps that happen whenever you cut yourself so that you don't bleed out.

And you can't take the steps out of order and you can't remove any step. So there's no way that evolution could have figured out how to do these five steps in order because all the animals that would have been evolving without blood coagulation built into their systems in advance would all just bleed out and die.

So you get injured and not all these factors are activated. You get a platelet plug and then a fibrin clot.

You can't rearrange these things at all and there's no way that evolution could have done them in steps because all the creatures that didn't have all five components assembled in place in the order that they're in would have all died.

So that's a very interesting evidence that we were instantaneously snapshot created.

And I think we may have another video here. No, I must have taken that out for saving some time here.

So evidence number five is the overwhelmingly weak case for human evolution.

And you guys, this has been very astounding for me to go through and spend years learning about the best case that they seem to have for human evolution because I just kept finding myself saying, my gosh, you're just grasping for straws because just stepping back and thinking, if human evolution were true, we would expect at least two things from a very common sense standpoint.

The first is we would expect to see it happening today, vastly worldwide.

We would expect to see all kinds of humans in some transitionary state. If we have eight billion people alive today, we would have, you know, one billion in this category over here, halfway evolved.

And, oh, this crowd over here, they're still walking on four feet, you know, or hands and feet. And this crowd over here, well, they're a little bit better than the other ones.

But we don't see that. We have eight billion interfertile human species today that have all the same basic faculties.

We vary, like God has established by not even necessarily by different races.

That's a whole different topic. But we have different people groups that carry similar traits.

But we're all interfertile, and we're all equal humans. And you can take a pygmy, and they can have kids with an aborigine.

And anywhere else around the world, we are one human family. And so that's one thing

I would expect to see. I would expect to see all kinds of humans in various stages of evolution. And then

I would expect to see, if human evolution were true, not a scrappy few dozen, lame little bones around that supposedly lead to human evolution.

I would expect to see swimming pools worth of evolved bones all over the earth with humans in various stages.

Did you know, we're going to see this as we go through it, but all they have is really enough bones that they allege supposedly support this transition between ape -like creatures and humans to put into a bathtub.

That's all they have. And when I started digging under all the rocks and looking for all their evidence,

I was astounded to find that that was the case. A bathtub's worth of evidence for the most important theory of evolution, human evolution.

So let's dig into that by first taking a look at all their changing stories. If you go back about 100 years, well, here's the story of human evolution here.

You've got modern man and anthropos and neanderthals and pithecanthropus. Did you know that they've changed, they've removed a lot of these icons and they put in new candidates over the years?

Because if you go to 1927, you've got some new ones that are in, some ones that have been pulled out.

You even have peltdown man here, which was not a human evolution at all, or human icon at all.

And then we've got another idea, then 1951, it changes again. Do you know for every generation they tell a different story?

If you go back in the history books, as I have, I have hundreds of dollars worth of rare books and old books that supposedly pitch this idea of human evolution.

And the theory is all over the place because they're grasping at straws because it didn't happen. So even in a modern day book, if you say, well, let's just give me the most recent

National Academy of Science and one of the leading scientists in the world, they say, well, here's what we think.

They no longer are willing to even call it a human tree of evolution. They're calling it a human book or a bush of evolution.

But do you notice all of the question marks that they have here on this chart? They really don't know how these creatures supposedly lined up to go from ape -like creatures to Homo sapiens.

It's all based upon guesswork. And here's yet another one in Scientific American with a leading expert in human evolution.

All of these dashes that we have here show broken links.

Do you see this? They don't have a cohesive tree that leads to humans. They have a bush with broken branches.

And they're even willing to admit here how all their branches are broken, saying we don't know which one connects to which one.

And if you were to take all of these different icons, literally you could take what you see here with all of these creatures like Homo habilis and Homo agaster and put them into a bathtub.

That's literally what we're working with here. Very, very scrappy evidence. The other thing that's interesting is that you'll see all kinds of admittances they have here saying, you know what?

We still have not found the missing link between us and apes. And we have other accounts like this, the human ape missing.

Well, it's still missing. We don't have that link. Here's another one that says the oldest fossils of our species, you know, redate humans.

It's like, oh my gosh, we're going to have to redo the line of Homo sapiens by now 100 ,000 years.

That's what they're now claiming. So we've got to go redo the story and move, shift things around to another 100 ,000 years.

Another one says happy 350 ,000th birthday study pushes back Homo sapien origins again.

So this is a case that just happened in San Diego where they were digging up a freeway and found tools buried with macedons, with woolly mammoths.

And they're like, these bones aren't supposed to be mixed with human tools, but they found them with human tools. So of course it makes sense in our timeline because we know that humans populated

North America after the babble dispersion at the waning of the ice age. And they lived there with all of the ice age related creatures who were there and they were hunting and killing them.

So it fits within our timeline just fine. Next, let's take a look at the scant, scattered, and sifted fossil record.

And I use all those three words deliberately. It's very scant, it's very scattered, and it's very sifted because we have millions of ape -like creatures.

We have tons of missing transition and we now actually have more than, we're like eight billion humans on earth.

So where are all of these transitions? Well, Dr. Ian Tattersall from the American Museum of Natural History says this.

We could fit them all into the back of a pickup truck if you didn't mind how much you jumbled everything up.

So I think the quote evidence is more like a bathtub. Some many secular evolutionists have said similar things.

He says a pickup truck. Well still, that's really, really weak evidence to take all of the evidence that we have supposedly evolved from humans or from ape -like creatures and put into the back of a pickup truck.

And we also have big what's called inferential leaps or guesses between certain tags of evidence, different dots that they're trying to connect here.

We have consistent exaggerations, contradictions, and overlapping icons.

So we're going to take a look at some of the leading icons for human evolution going from the oldest all the way up to the newest.

And here's a sixth grade textbook that's used in California. And this is very typical of the story that they say of human evolution.

They say in summary form here, they say, look, we started evolving from Australopithecines four to five million years ago.

That was Lucy's kind. Lucy's the most famous human fossil ever found. And we'll take a look at her in just a minute.

Then we went on to Homo habilis and Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens. So that's a traditional timeline that you'll see in school textbooks over millions of years of evolution.

Well, here's what Lucy looked like. Lucy's a fossil that was between 20 and 40 percent complete based upon how you would categorize complete lists, but definitely half of her and then some is missing.

And here is Lucy next to a little girl. So that's what the fossil looks like and places

LA Natural History Museum and San Francisco and different places where they have models of her whole fossil displayed.

And we'll take a look at what they found. So this is what they found. And then they do this.

This is from a seventh grade textbook, I believe. So now they've taken this scant semblance of of fossils here and they've made a complete woman looking like a holding a little baby walking with the baby on her hip like humans do complete with a

Lucy like man. So look at the inference that's going on here. This Lucy has feet and hands and they didn't find any feet or any hands with Lucy's fossil.

And so they're taking a lot of artistic liberty to exaggerate a human like appearance based upon a very scant finding of bones.

Lucy actually looked like this. This is a resemblance that they have of her. And the answer is a

Genesis Museum. She was quadruped. She was hunched over walking like an like an ape.

And there's a lot of reasons for this. We'll get into just some of them tonight. But just consider how they found

Lucy. So they found hundreds of bone pieces that they glued together to make this thing that they called

Lucy over a three meter area of hillside, 50 square meters or 20 tons were sifted to find what resulted in about 20 percent of her bones.

And just just amazing. Look at how they assemble this thing from scant sifted evidence.

So Lucy's skull and they only found a few fragments of her skull, but they've since found other australopithecines that they've inferred what

Lucy's skull must have looked like. So you see here with Lucy specifically, all the brown parts are what they found and the rest is all imagined.

It's plaster of Paris. They had to use creative guesswork to imagine what they thought the rest of her skull might have looked like.

But they only found the brown pieces. And you notice the slope of her face.

Well, if you see that extreme slope, if Lucy was walking upright, like they claim that she was, if she looked down while her face, her gaze is facing forward, she would have looked down and saw her nose or her mouth, her jaw jetting out there.

So definitely would have forced her into a more hunched over position walking. And they've also learned that her spine entered in from an angle just like chimps do today.

So here's a slope skull, very much ape like. And there we see her gaze and she would have been looking.

She couldn't have seen hardly anything where her feet were going to be if she was upright. So that's where her gaze would have aligned.

So definitely not walking like an upright creature. And here we have a graphic showing where her spine entered the base of her skull.

It's called the foramen magnum. Did you know that this drawing here is actually incorrect?

They show Lucy here kind of walking upright and they show humans walking upright. Here's what the data actually shows.

This is what the scientific reports show that her spine entered her neck at the same angle that chimps do today, which again would force her into a slumped hunched over position walking on all fours.

Whereas humans, our spine enters our foramen magnum very straight up and down. And Lucy and chimps would be very hunched over.

So she definitely wasn't walking in an upright position. She would have had a sloped spine walking hunched over like you see here.

So then we have her semicircular canals which are definitely better suited for walking on all fours.

So we have three of these semicircular canals jammed in our heads here and they're filled with fluid and they control balance while we walk.

Well, they've done studies on this and learned that Lucy's semicircular canals were the same as chimps are today.

So she wouldn't have had necessarily the control center and the balance for walking or running upright like humans do today.

They were 50 % the size of humans, but the ones that control certain motions were about the same, but the ones that would have controlled upright walking were half the size as humans, even controlling for body size.

So here's another interesting thing. Did you know that you go into LA today or the Smithsonian or any museum where you see

Lucy's displayed, they're going to show her thoracic vertebrae. And recently they learned that that was accidentally included with her fossil when they were shifting through all those bones, because that is the vertebrae of a theropithecus, which is an extinct baboon -like creature.

So it wasn't even supposed to be with Lucy's kind. So if that's true, what else in this fossil is just an semblance of different creatures that were scrapped together?

But that's one thing you can point out to people if you ever visit a museum and say, take a look at that thoracic vertebrae.

It's not even hers and evolutionists have admitted, yep, that belongs to a different animal. Okay. So now they are even having articles come out where they can't decide her gender anymore.

They say, well, gosh, is it Lucy or Brucie is one headline or another one came out in the or Lucifer?

Gender confusion in the Pliocene. And I think it's, of course, quite interesting that they would use the word

Lucifer. Lucy or Lucifer. So they're not even sure now about her gender.

They've also learned that her wrist could lock into place for knuckle walking, just like chimps do today, because there's a concave and convex locking system.

So she could have in fact walked like a quadruped because her wrist can lock into place for knuckle walking.

Ours cannot. Here's the end of Lucy's wrist bone. Here's what a chimp looks like.

And here's humans. Humans are perfectly flat across. And that's why the number one injury in ERs today are kids falling off of roller devices, either roller blades, roller skates, skateboards, whatever it is, and trying to break their fall with their wrists.

And of course, a wrist break, because our lists are not strong. You're not designed to carry our load and not designed to carry our weight.

But Lucy's wrist, just like a chimp, could lock into place for knuckle walking. Ours could not.

So clearly not very human -like. We see this curved, concave, convex locking system that she would have and that we did not.

Her fingers are also curved, just like chimpanzees are today. Even by ape standards, they say they're very, very curved.

And that would have been advantageous for Lucy to live in swinging trees. And they actually came out with a report with a bunch of forensic scientists saying that if Lucy...

Dan, I think your internet may have gone out. Let's see.

It did it a little bit a couple minutes ago, but then it did catch back up. So hopefully...

I don't think he knows. Can you text him? Yeah. No. I'll turn on my camera.

Did you pause the recording? Go ahead.

Great. All right. We had a little technical difficulty there, but I think we're back.

We now have 400 specimens of Lucy's species. How about now?

Can you hear me all right? Yes. Okay. Perfect. Good. Okay. So this video will not play with sound, but what

Donald Johansson says when they show this video is that they've found a whole bunch of these

Australopithecines. We now have 400 specimens of Lucy's species of Australopithecus afarensis named after the

Afar region. And we know that they're very large individuals, which are males, and the smaller ones are certainly...

So this is what they show, that there are like this whole army parade of all these

Australopithecines walking across the scene here. What they're not saying is here's what they actually have.

They actually don't have hundreds of complete upright walking skeletons. They have a picnic table full of scrapped bones that they believe belong to Lucy's kind.

Fewer than 400 bones and 35 % of the whole collection is just teeth.

So isn't that interesting how they exaggerated it? They show you this with hundreds of complete upright walking skeletons, but they actually have a picnic table worth of bones.

So not much evidence at all. But all across the world, we see all these Lucy -like creatures with eye whites.

And we know that apes do not have eye whites. They put eye whites on Lucy deliberately to exaggerate a human -like appearance.

And they make her thinking. Here they've got her... We had to put an edit on this one, but now they've taken all the fur off of Lucy.

And they've given her a husband and a kid. Lucy with eye whites. Lucy pontificating in deep thought.

So definitely an exaggerated Lucy. Next, and I won't spend too much time on this, is the next icon.

If you recall back in that sixth grade textbook, they said our human line shifted from Australopithecus to Homo habilis.

And I'm just going to say this one thing about Homo habilis. Did you know that this entire taxonomy is an invention?

It's an idea. They've never found a complete skeleton that they call Homo habilis.

And they have fewer than a hundred bone pieces that they attribute to this taxon.

And evolutionists are arguing with each other if it should even be a legitimate taxon, because they have fewer than a hundred bone pieces.

On your left here on Chris Rupp's book, they have 17 bone pieces and that is what they call the type set for Homo habilis.

That's the best example they have of this Homo habilis like creature. Evidence that humans were actually the inhabitants of this site is also confirmed by a 12 foot circular foundation made of lava stones for a hut shelter they found in the same archaeological bed where Homo habilis bones were found.

Paleo experts even described. If you go back and start that video and then

I will, because I'm not hearing the sound on my side, but I'll go ahead and start the video again. Evidence that humans were actually the inhabitants of this site is also confirmed by a 12 foot circular foundation made of lava stones for a hut shelter they found in the same archaeological bed where Homo habilis bones were found.

Paleo experts even described this circular stone foundation as having a striking similarity to the dome shaped hut shelters still made today by nomadic people in the same area.

But it gets even better. They actually found the stone circle in a layer beneath Homo habilis bones.

Now, that's not faring well for the theory of evolution. Go ahead and let me know when the video, when the audio stops, if you could, that'd be great.

It's done. Okay, terrific. So very, very interesting quick review of Homo habilis, but I think the most amazing thing for me is just the fact that they really don't have any.

They have maybe a half a bucket worth of bones they think are attributed to this creature that they call

Homo habilis. So we will move on past there. Here's the replicas of the stone hut that they found, and they're very much like huts that are found by indigenous groups today.

Of course, Neanderthals is what was pitched to me when I was a student in school. That was like the number one, you know, the last hairy brute that was in the lineup of human evolution.

So they have this drawing here done, I think, the London Times about 100 years ago.

But Neanderthal was portrayed as this brutish half man, half ape creature walking around with clubs.

But they've recently done more studies and learned, my goodness, they were just humans. They found them buried alongside with humans.

They do ceremonies, they have artwork, they were involved in worship, they would even die for sea cells at specific depths.

They would make glue, specific type of natural super glue that for hafting that people have a hard time replicating today.

They were just humans that had a rather thick body plan, very, very similar to what

Samoans might have today. Many Samoans will have that type of a phenotype. But Neanderthals were basically just humans.

So here we have the lineup again. We have Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo sapiens.

And before that, they actually put Ardipithecus. And so we have that icon.

And here we see how that's very scant and remote as well. Then we have Lucy. Then we have all these bones.

That's all that they think that that's the entire Lucy bone collection of all of the types of Australopithecines that they've found.

And 35 % of that is just teeth. Then we have the Homo habilis, which is really represented by 100 bone pieces.

You got to wonder how many sixth grade students in California that are now using this textbook, look at the

Homo habilis in their textbook and think, well, they probably have hundreds or thousands of those icons, but they really don't.

That's represented by just 100 bone pieces with an invented category called Homo habilis.

Then did you know that it's very interesting, they say between the period, of course, this is evolutionary timeline here.

They admit that between what they think is 2 million and 3 million years ago, so a whole 1 million year span, they say that they basically have no, no evidence of human evolution there.

They said you could take all of the fossils we believe fit that million year time span and put them into a shoebox and still have room left over for putting in a good pair of shoes.

Very, very interesting. And that's what I mean by having scant information. So I think we've about used up the time here.

And I apologize, I don't know what happened. My microphone just died in the middle of the talk there. But I'm using external mic now.

So hopefully that works out good. But let's see if we can take some questions. And I know we're bumpered right up against the time.

Yeah, so we do. And that was a really good presentation. It was, you know, except for the hiccups, but they happen.

But other than that, it was a very good, it was very thorough. So thank you.

You know, we, we love to hear the science, sciency things. So we do have our friend watching on Facebook, Cheryl, she's asking if you can explain how they date the bones.

Yes, they do have some modern techniques that they do to try to date the bones directly.

But most of the time with evolution, they rely on dating the ash layers that the bones are found in between.

And that's why it's a continually moving process. And it's because, you know, these ash layers, they believe that they're formed, and it's radiometric dating.

And then they look at the parent element and how quickly it decays into a daughter element.

And it's a longer discussion to express why we believe radiometric dating is not valid, of course, but they're usually dating the ash layers that are between the fossils that they find or the ash layers that the fossils are directly found in.

So it's a, it's a very, very weak method. And they, to this day, they can use carbon dating, which is probably the most reliable dependent method, but it only works good for a few thousand years.

And then the, the standard error prediction gets very, very, very broad. Good question though.

I'm here in Zoom. Linda's asking if you if you remember the slide that you when you restarted the first slide that you showed, she was asking if you could go back to that one and explain it.

Okay, let's see if I remember what slide that was. I think it was blue and had some people on it.

Was that right, Linda? And oh, she's asking about the one right before, right before there was a problem.

But yeah, blue with people. Was there a problem here with this one? Or was it right after this one?

Well, you're not sharing right now. Can you share again? Let me go back and share. Got it. Okay.

One second here. I'll share. And okay, share the screen.

Let's go back and share. Okay. And I'm here.

And I think, I think that was the last slide I had before we had the technical problem. Is that right? Is that the one,

Linda, that you're asking about? I think so.

So go, go ahead. And if you could explain that one. Okay, I think it was the one right after this one, where we talked about how many loose of Lucy's kind has been found.

Here's where I have the technical error that I that I saw. And we now have 400 specimens of Lucy species

Australopithecus afarensis, named after the Afar region. And we know that they're very large individuals, the males and the smaller ones are certainly females.

Yeah, I don't think it's in the video. I think it's just before. Linda, speak up here. Help us out.

She got knocked offline. So she's coming back in. She's kind of in a, she's in a rural area.

But it was a slide before this video because wasn't this where he was having the problem?

Terry, um, it was right around here. Let's so Oh, here.

She says yes. Yes. Linda, was this the one that you were asking about the one he's showing right now with the bones?

Yes. Okay. This is it. Oh, okay. This is okay. Because I think that's right where I left.

So this is research that's been done on different fingers from apes, chimps, humans, and Australopithecines.

And we see here on the very bottom, the sample AL333 -62. That was not from Lucy, but they believe it was from one of Lucy's kinds or Lucy species.

And you can see here how the finger is curved and ape like and they say even by even like, by ape standards, it's very, very curved.

So when humans stick their hands out, our digits are completely straight, but apes can't do that.

When they stick their hand out flat like this, it's going to be curved because each section of their, of their hand or their finger bones are curved.

So we see that this is evolutionists would say, well, you know, over millions of years, we evolved out of the trees.

And so we don't need curved fingers anymore. But, but wherever, you know, Lucy seems to fit in there and their lineup, her fingers were very curved indicates that she was still living in trees like a quadrupedal ape does.

And obviously she fell out of the tree and died. They say, but her, this, this just shows that her fingers themselves were curved and humans fingers are straight.

So they were curved just like apes are today. So very much, she was just an ape. So that's what this, what this one shows.

And now I appreciate that explanation. That is very, I think that's fascinating. But Linda was actually asking about the next slide.

Okay. No problem. Let's do that one too. Is it this one here? It must be.

I think that that's the one. Is that the one Linda? Hopefully she's yes. That's the one.

Okay. Got it. So this is a picture that came out of a study that was done by a bunch of forensic scientists who tried to investigate how did

Lucy die? And, and so they got a team together. This was actually featured on CNN and they concluded because Lucy had a bunch of what's called green stick fractures, for example, in her wrist and forearm bones.

And a green stick fracture is when you put, apply pressure on a bone until it starts splintering out like a green stick would, as you bend it, it begins splintering out and then it goes snap finally.

And they found that's exactly what happened with Lucy. And so they hypothesized that her cause of death was falling 40 feet out of a tree while she was traveling about 35 miles per hour.

She tried to break her fall and then extended her wrists out and her bones snapped because she fell.

So that was her cause of death. And so it's very ironic to think, well, what is this ape?

Which evolutionists say were walking, it was supposedly walking upright, just like humans were today. They believe that from her, her hips and things.

So if she's supposedly walking upright, what's she doing 40 feet up in a tree and falling to her death while being up in a tree?

So that's the point of this slide. And how did she get to go 35 miles an hour in a tree?

Just falling. By the time she reached the ground, they said she was going 35 miles an hour from gravity alone.

And from 40 feet? Yes. It's, it's either, it's either 40 miles an hour at 35 feet or 40 feet at 35 miles an hour, but it's, it's one of those two.

So they believe that's how she, she died from falling 40 feet down. By the time she hit the ground, she was going fast, tried to break her fall and then her bones snapped.

So it's just, it's, it's hilarious to me and how ironic is it that they think that Lucy is her claim to fame because they say she was definitely walking upright, walking on ground like humans, but her cause of death, according to evolutionists was falling out of a tree.

It's just like you, you can't make this stuff up. I have a question. Yes. Okay.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. My question, I was speaking with Dr. Marcus Ross at the international conference on creationism.

He was suggesting that maybe Adam was homo erectus.

Have you ever heard this? I have. And there, there are, there are many people in Christendom that are espousing things like that, or that, you know, there is a homo erectus line and then

God eventually picked one and breathed his spirit into one of those. I would have to look at something that Marcus Ross wrote himself for a book or a document or some video interview in order to comment, but I would definitely not agree with that.

We're made in God's, in God's image and the line of Christ goes straight back 77 generations from Christ all the way back to Adam.

And, and, and I know people that say that, you know, Lucy was, was part of thousands of ape -like creatures and God picked one of those types of creatures and just shifted them from ape -like.

And I think he was not suggesting a long line of, you know, the homo erectus going back hundreds of thousands of years.

He's saying that Adam was maybe that we assume that Adam was homo sapien.

Assume that we don't actually know that, do we? Right. We're just assuming it because we've understood that, but he's saying, what if, now we're just toying with the idea.

What if Adam was actually homo erectus. And so during the pre -flood era, obviously a lot of homo erectus would be, have been, you know, the descendants of Adam and become homo sapien.

You know, the, the interesting thing about the homo erectus taxon is that they share 13 of 17 characteristics that we would attribute to aborigines,

Australian aborigines. So there is a specific phenotype of features of different people groups around the place based upon people we have alive today and, and, and animals or people that lived back then.

And I would just say that the homo erectus group is a, is a very lightweight group.

There's not a lot of specimens that we would classify there. And we would all just be conjecture. We really don't know what

Adam looked like. He might've looked like an Australian aborigine, which kind of looked like homo erectus.

But I, I don't know. I don't know why he would want to have to say that Adam looked like, or was a homo erectus.

I would say we'd have a lot of limited information to say either way, what Adam looked like.

But that, that's a great comment. I didn't know that that was his perspective. I've, I've recently heard about several people saying similar things.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that question. And then Jim also has a question.

This is more on the philosophical side of things, but he asks, why is it that evolutionists can speculate willy -nilly and nobody bats an eyelash, but any creation -based explanations are disregarded out of hand?

Sounds like a double standard and anti -bias or a bias against anything biblical.

Yes. And I actually have a really strong opinion about this that comes more from scripture than it does from logic and sense, because what

I've learned and being in this field now for, for maybe 10 years with, with a lot of time invested is that I stopped trying to look for sensibleness, reason, and ration to explain why certain people believe what they're going to believe.

Like, if you just look at the human ear, you're like, really, do you, do you believe that it's assembled itself? I believe out of Romans one and second

Peter three and some other passages that it's completely a spiritual phenomenon.

I believe that the God of this world has blinded the eyes of the unbeliever. And I think that scripture supports that perspective.

And I think until a person is regenerate, until they get the Holy spirit, I think that they're going to be left to, to their own devices and having blinders on until they can see.

I really think that it takes God to know God. And I think people's eyes will be open when they become regenerate.

And until they, they are, they're just going to be blind to these truths. So I think it's, it's really a spiritual phenomenon.

Yeah, I would agree with that. So we've reached the end of our recording and live stream time.

So before we turn those off, Dan, if you'd like to let people know one more time, we'll go, unless you have a slide that you want to show, you could go ahead and stop sharing so that people can see you and you can tell people how to find you and, and support your ministry.

Sure. Yeah. I think most importantly, if I didn't have time for all the questions today, please email me at danatgenesisapologetics .com,

or you can go to our website and there's a staff link there that you can send us an email to. And I think the, the, the, the leading, the last thing

I'd like to say is please go watch our, our flood movie. I'm really excited about it.

We had participants from Answers in Genesis and Liberty University and several other people lean into that movie.

It's going to be the most photorealistic work ever done on Noah's flood. And it's going to be of course, biblical, and it's going to have a strong gospel push at the end.

So you can sign up there just at noahsflood .com. So, but thanks for having me on. It's been fun.

That the movie is scheduled to come out in March of next year. Is that right? Yeah. March 20th and 21st of next year.

Okay, perfect. And we are Creation Fellowship Santee. Again, you can find a list of our upcoming speakers and also links to most of our past presentations by going to tinyurl .com

forward slash CF Santee, C like creation, F like fellowship,

Santee is S -A -N -T -E -E. And you can also email us at creationfellowshipsantee at gmail .com.

Next week, we'll have another Dan, this time it's Dan Creft, our good friend, the seven foot apologist, and he's going to be here to talk to us about developing a good plan for dialoguing with Mormon missionaries who come knocking on your door.

So that one you won't want to miss. All right. And with that, we're going to go ahead and sign off the live stream and our recording.