24 - The Creation of Man, Part 1 - Refuting Evolution

Well, welcome to the Striving for Eternity Academy School of Systematic Theology. We welcome you to class. We are grateful that you are joining us. And as we start into our second book of four books, we are in book number two, which is titled God's Gift to Man.

And in this, we are going to deal with the theological doctrines of man, of sin, and salvation. Okay? Man, sin, and salvation. Hope you have your syllabus. If you're an enrolled student, if you're not an enrolled student, I would encourage you to consider enrolling as a student of the academy.

One of the things you get is the syllabus. That way, right? Okay. Over here. The syllabus. And so, that's one thing that you get. But there's some other benefits that we have. And we are always, last week we did an interview, and we're always afraid when we put psi on it, it kind of scares everyone away, so there may not be as many students this week watching.

He has that effect? No. But we are going to talk about today the creation of man, which when we get into this, we're going to see that some people may end up asking, well, after last, the interview that we did with psi on presuppositional apologetics, doesn't this kind of undermine some of that?

Because we're going to talk about some false views. And you're going to see that we're not. It's not going to be because we're not going to try to prove God exists by attacking false views of the creation of man.

But we are starting now with this new syllabus. We do want to welcome all of the new students that have come out, that have enrolled this week. And so, we hope that you have your syllabus in time. And so, we will begin this class by looking at, in book number two, we are looking at the gift of man.

Anthropology and the Two Questions About Man

We're going to start in section one, speaking specifically of the doctrine of man. And we'll start with lesson one. That's usually good to start with lesson one. We're going to start with the creation of man.

We're going to start by looking at the creation of man. Now, this particular study on the origin of man is called anthropology, all right? The study of man, that's your first blank in your syllabus there, anthropology.

And what we have there is that in this lesson, we are going to cover this specific lesson today. Maybe we'll get through all of it today. We'll see. We're going to cover the creation of man according to the doctrine of man.

So, we're going to have two key questions that we're going to have in this lesson. And they are, how was man created and how is man procreated? Okay? So, those are the two that we're going to look at.

Now, there is a lot that we can look at when we get into the origin of man because there are whole genres of books put out by creation scientists that will cover the areas of the origin of man. And so, what we're going to see is that when we look at this, there's a whole lot more that we could go into.

So, we're really going to just touch the tip of the iceberg of some of these things. We're going to get into giving you an overview so that you have enough to understand what are the true, the biblical views, the unbiblical views, and why we would say that, what issues they have with them.

Then, we're going to get into some very interesting theological issues of how man procreates. So, let us begin and we are going to start with the origin of man. The origin of man. Now, as we look at the origin of man, in studying the original creation of man, we need to first address some false views of how man was originally created and then we're going to examine the biblical account of man's actual creation, okay?

Because there are some false views that people have, okay? And the one that's, if you're even remotely paying attention to false views of the origin of man, especially if you've been raised in some of the American school systems, you're very familiar with being forced to learn the false view called evolution, evolution.

And I'm being quite clear that that is a false view. There's no reason that when people argue that evolution is true, that we as Christians need to like fear and be like, oh no, they're bringing up the e-word, now we're going to get into all this scientific stuff that I don't know how to handle and oh, what am I going to do?

Yeah, don't worry. First of all, remember that if you're talking to an unbeliever, all right, they already know God exists, it's not even up for debate, it's not a discussion, God said it, they know it.

They might suppress that, that's their problem. But what we end up having when we look at this is we will have times that we will be challenged with all these people arguing for evolution. And there are a great number of professing Christians that have been duped by this.

I'm on the flip side, I actually started out as an evolutionist having a background in science and evolved to becoming a creationist, so I guess maybe I do believe in evolution. Hmm, just a thought. But what we end up seeing though is this, is that when we are challenged, the argument is often laid as if if you don't accept evolution, you're somehow just a knucklehead.

You're dim-witted, you're not understanding, you can't comprehend and typically what they're really arguing is they can't support their worldview and so they want to belittle you so you don't challenge theirs.

That's really what's going on. Evolution is full of so many huge holes that it really doesn't take much to dismantle. You don't need a scientific degree to understand the issues. And so what I want to do is give you first what evolution is as defined and then we're going to kind of dismantle it and refute it.

And one of the things you'll often see, if you go to Smithsonian down in Washington as I have done and you go down there and you look and they're going to have some plaques on evolution or the natural history museum and they have these plaques and it basically gives the view that's very interesting because what they'll say in these museums is that we creationists believe that there has never been any change whatsoever.

No, we don't believe that. See, that's called a false argument because it's a logical fallacy that they're setting up a straw man argument so that they seem like they're really smart. Yeah, but everybody knows that there are changes within a kind.

Just that simple. Within a kind. So when we talk evolution, I want to give you a definition and then I'm going to try and break this down a little bit more so that we understand what is and isn't understood when people talk evolution.

So evolution defined is both the body and soul of man descended from lower animals by a completely natural process entirely by inherent forces. So what they're saying is both your material being and your immaterial being.

Oops, that's kind of a problem, isn't there? How can material things create immaterial? Okay, we'll get there. But that is a problem they have. You see, now often what you'll do is you'll get them and they'll want to skip right over that question because they can't answer that question, right?

Someone can't argue that. So the reality is when people get into trying to prove something like evolution, they skip over the things they can't explain like the fact they know God exists, the fact that life can't come from non-life, the fact that immaterial can't come from material, all these problems.

But they just want to skip right over that. We'll pretend that doesn't exist and we'll just get to what we see. And they'll argue, well, we see that there is changes. Well, okay, what are those changes?

Those changes are in the material, not the immaterial. And one of the things that you see is there's two realms. Now, some people call it micro and macro evolution, micro being small changes, macro being large changes, micro evolution or what is really properly called special evolution is these, is really what we'd call genetics or DNA.

It is adaptation. It is the loss of genetic material that causes changes in the next generation. But that next generation still remains whatever the previous generation was. In other words, cats don't give birth to dogs.

They give birth to cats. And though they may lose information, they still give birth to something in the cat family. Same with a dog. If you take two wolves and you take the two wolves and you put them up in one pair of wolves in Alaska and take the same pair of wolves that are identical, same genetic makeup, and you put them in, say, the Sahara desert, you're going to find within several generations that the wolves up in Alaska, that those that are in the next generation that have shorter hair are probably going to die out before they have a chance to reproduce.

And so over a couple of generations, maybe a hundred generations, they're going to completely lose the information in the genetics to have short hair. The reversal happened to those in the desert. That is micro or special evolution.

That's real science. That's something we can see, we can observe, we can reproduce, we can test on it. That's real science. But just because that's real science doesn't mean the leap of faith that people do is real science.

The leap of faith is this, that because we see micro or special evolution, therefore macro or general evolution must be true. In other words, that one kind of animal produces another kind of animal given enough time.

So when we look at the definition explained, we're dealing with the fact that people are arguing, when we look at the definition, people are arguing for a view that is really they're doing a bait and switch would be the best way I can explain it.

They take something that they see in science that everyone agrees with, creationists will agree with, evolutionists will agree with, and then they say, well since that's true, therefore, well it's that therefore that there's no scientific evidence for.

And when we look at, so the first view that we have is evolution, we explained it. Let's look at a refutation of that because I think the first one that I almost slipped into giving you the first argument.

So taking evolution and refuting it. Evolution refuted apart from addressing the components of the theory, there's basically five different problems that we're going to look at when we look at evolution.

And so we're going to look at these as just five things that you can have to know. And again, I'm not arguing this so that you'd sit there and try to prove, well hey, look evolution is wrong so God exists.

Bad argument. Okay, that doesn't convince somebody. Okay, trying to argue that evolution is not true, therefore God exists is almost as bad of an argument as, you know, special evolution exists, therefore general evolution exists.

It's kind of the same thing. All right, God exists and they know it apart from proving evolution true or not. Okay, we're going to see in a moment that believing in God doesn't automatically make you a creationist, all right.

So just so you know that. But let's take a look at the first one. When we want to refute evolution, if you look in your syllabus, you see the very first refutation that we have there is that there is no evidence of evolution is still ongoing.

That's your blank there, ongoing. Now when I'm using evolution in this sense, I'm using it by that definition I gave, which really is not the special or micro evolution but really the general or macro evolution.

It is the concept that we evolved from lower forms of animals, okay, both body and soul. I'm saying that just so that you understand that when we look at the special evolution, genetics or DNA, that is true.

We do observe that. That's still ongoing. But we look at the process that people argue to try to prove there is no God and that's what they're doing it for. They believe in evolution because they have a presupposition they're trying to wishfully thinking hold to as true being that there is no God, which is always kind of funny.

They argue that we're not supposed to start with God as a presupposition but they want to start with no God as a presupposition. That's kind of silly. But that is what they're doing and now they have to come up with a way to explain you and I without God.

Thus, evolution. If you actually read what evolutionists write, especially in the trade journals, you'll see very clearly that that is the issue. That is what they're trying to prove. Just read in a scientific journal this week where they think they finally, finally found a positive mutation.

And the first whole executive summary of the article goes on to say that this will be the first positive mutation that they found and this proves evolution is true. And then if you keep reading the whole article, it basically shows that they actually don't have any evidence for the claim.

Oops. And that's what they do. They make a claim and just making the claim doesn't make it true, okay? So, the first thing is when we say that there's no evidence that it is still ongoing, when we look at the scientific evidence, the actual evidence of science, those things that we all have, okay, regardless of how you interpret it, okay, when we look at the evidence, we don't see anything that shows that this general evolution is still going on.

In other words, when we look at cats giving birth, they give birth to cats. When we look at birds giving birth, they give birth to birds. That's what we observe, okay? That's what we can reproduce. What we don't see and we don't understand or we don't observe is a cat giving birth to a dog, alright?

So, there's no evidence that evolution is still ongoing. In other words, the idea being that if evolution is true, or at least they believe it was in the past, we don't see the evidence for it and it should be ongoing today.

I mean, think about how many millions and millions and millions of mutations there has to be and changes there has to be of one kind becoming another kind. We should be seeing all those things. We should be seeing some evidence that evolution is still, that general evolution is still happening today, but we don't see it.

So, the first argument, the first refutation that we have for evolution, getting ahead of myself, for evolution would be that there's no evidence that evolution is still ongoing. What this also touches on is also the fact that for evolution to be true, they have to assume that everything that is happening today has always been the same way and yet, there's a slight problem with that because everybody accepts that there was some major catastrophe worldwide.

Whether you want to believe in a worldwide flood or a worldwide ice age, but everyone knows it wasn't all that long ago that something major wiped everything out. So, what you end up having is a major problem because if evolution is true, if it's true and we have as many different species and different families of animals that we see today, we immediately should realize that this should be happening so often that we have tons and tons of evidence of it ongoing and yet, we don't.

You see the issue. Even if you say, well, there was an ice age several thousands of years ago, 10, 20 ,000 years ago, I think about 15 ,000 to 20 ,000 years is what the secular scientists would argue was the dating of the last ice age.

Some actually see a newer ice age within the last 10 ,000 years, but they all realize that it would have wiped everyone out. So, what does that mean? It means we don't have enough time for evolution to start over again.

I mean, evolution had to start and give us these great big dinosaurs and then all of a sudden get wiped out and start over again. There's not enough time. You see, when they talk millions of years, they're forgetting about their own ice age, which wiped everyone out and had to start over.

There should be so much evidence of evolution ongoing today that we should be able to find it everywhere. We should see lots of transitional forms, something that's in the middle of being one thing or another, but that gets us to something we're going to get to in a moment.

Let's look at the second one. I already touched on this. Number two is that the science of genetics, that's your blank there, genetics. The science of genetics proves that the theory of evolution is impossible, okay?

Science shows that the DNA can only lose information and not gain it. Simple creatures cannot develop into more complex creatures. In other words, you have an amoeba that to Darwin seemed like such a simple thing.

A single-celled organism that was a simple form and yet it isn't simple when we understand DNA. Now, Darwin knew nothing of DNA. It was known at the time. He knew nothing about it. Fine. But what we end up seeing is that when we look at this, we see that within the DNA, an amoeba has the same extremely complex DNA, all right?

Therefore, it's not so simple. It may be more simple than you and I because the instruction set is different, but it still has the same language and basic parts that are needed for the DNA for that language, okay, that we can know that it's not so simple, okay?

Now, what do we know of DNA, genetics? Real science that we can observe, that we could reproduce. That is following the scientific method and what do we learn? We learn within DNA that there is the loss of information.

In other words, like I gave you in the example, the two wolves that you put up in Alaska will lose the genetic makeup for short hair. The two wolves in the desert will lose the genetic makeup for long hair.

That's real science, okay? That is the science of genetics, real science. And it proves that the evolution of gaining more information, gaining more complex information is impossible because we can't gain the information.

We lose it. You can only get the DNA makeup one of two ways. One way is the way most of the second generation gets it. They get it from the first generation, their parents. They get the genetic makeup of their parents, okay?

The second way is a mutation, something that changes within the gene that is not from the parents but is a mutation. Problem is, as I already said, no scientist has found a single positive mutation. That's the problem.

They'll say they exist and they'll explain that, well, we would get the way we are from looking at positive mutations that occur. Name one. When you read the scientific journals, they know they don't exist and they're looking for it.

And when they get something they think might be close, they'll even explain it. As I said in this article that I read this week, where they'll say this is the proof but when you actually read the article, they don't have the evidence that it actually is anything other than a claim, okay?

So when you look at genetics, genetics actually proves evolution is impossible. Well, you go, wait a minute. Why do so many people believe it? Oh, that's easy. Romans chapter 1. Because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Do you remember what Jesus said? Jesus said to the religious Pharisees, the reason you do not believe the things I tell you is because I tell you the truth. Essentially, what's he saying? If he would have lied to them, they would believe him.

If he wouldn't tell the truth, they'd believe anything because they're too busy suppressing the truth. When a person suppresses the truth, they will believe any lie that helps in that suppression. It's a blind faith.

Evolution and atheism is absolutely a blind religious faith, okay? And it is because they ignore the evidence that is right in front of them. Here's the irony. The evidence that they use to prove evolution, in other words, they use genetics and looking at this special evolution and they use that to try to bait and switch people into believing general evolution.

Yeah, it's that very special evolution, genetics, that proves the general evolution is impossible. That's the irony. That's the thing that gets funny with them. And so, you know, one of the things I love to do with these people is point out the fact that they have a blind faith, a religious belief.

Drives them absolutely bonkers, okay? Because they'll try to argue that they don't, but the science doesn't support what they claim is science. They're using science as a philosophy, all right? So, if we look at evolution as defined as man descending from lower animals, both body and soul, we can refute them a couple ways.

One, there's no evidence that evolution is still ongoing. Two is the fact that the science of genetics or DNA proves that evolution is impossible because DNA proves that we can only lose information and not gain it.

Number three in your syllabus there is that evolution cannot explain the lack of transitional forms, okay? Let me explain what a transitional form, that's your blank there, transitional forms. A transitional form is something that if evolution was still ongoing, we should see lots of.

A creature, a kind of animal, and the Bible doesn't talk about species or families, it talks about kinds, okay? What specifically is a kind? Is it a species? Is it a family? Well, let's stop right there for one moment just to mention the fact that science recently came up with this categorizing of animals into different types of families and down to species and things like that.

You don't see that in the Bible. And so, what a lot of people want to do is try to argue that the Bible when it talks of kinds is talking species and then they'll show how they could take some different plants and those plants can show that they can make a different species.

That's not what a kind would be. The Bible says, and we'll look at later in this lesson, is that animals gave forth after their kind, a dog kind, a cat kind, a bird kind, a fish kind, mammal kind, you know what I mean, rat kind, whatever the kind is, probably be closer to a family.

But we can't be exactly sure because God's categorizing of the animals is different than the scientists today are trying to classify them, all right? So, that being said, we don't see these transitions between one kind of animal to another.

Now, you'll get some people that will try to say, oh, look at the platypus. Is the platypus really a transitional form or is it just a platypus? I mean, the fact that it has a bill like a duck, does that make it some transitional form between a duck and a reptile?

I mean, you know, it's like it doesn't. It is kind of funny when the atheists get upset with Ray Comfort when he puts these silly pictures of, you know, a dog's head on a bird's body and he calls it a dog bird.

And they say he's using mockery, but that would be a transitional form. That is exactly what we should see if we see these transitional forms. We should see some animal that is in between two animals, clearly, and we should see it moving from one kind to a different kind.

The problem is we don't see the platypus being something closer to a duck or anything else in the middle. You see, we see the platypus always being a platypus. When we look at the fossils of a platypus, we find them still being a platypus.

This is the issue. We should see these transitional forms going from one kind to another kind and we don't see it. OK? Evolutionists cannot explain the lack of the transitional forms. This is a real problem for them.

Now, the reason it's a real problem is because for evolution to be true, they say evolution is happening all the time all around us. They're talking genetics again. That's that bait and switch. Always watch that.

Always test that and watch and you'll see that when they talk about real scientific evolution, they're always talking what? Genetics. Real science. They ignore the fact that they do the bait and switch to say, well, that proves that the crocodile should exist.

A crocodile with a duck head. They mock Ray Comfort for coming up with a crocodile, but it should be there. There should be something that shows us this transition from one kind to another. But when we look at the fossil record, and that's your next one there, number four there, the fossil record, that's number four, fossil record, that's your blank.

The fossil record, one chief basis of the theory has been grossly misinterpreted. In other words, when we look at the fossil record, we don't see any transitional forms. And the things we do see that they try to argue to show this is evolution.

Look, we have it. It's grossly misinterpreted, if not completely outright lies. I remember when a friend of mine, Carl Kirby, did a talk that he has on the, I forget what the actual name of it was, but it was called The Missing Link was the show.

They had a website, The Missing Link, a documentary called The Missing Link. Throughout the whole thing, they argue that this animal looks very much like, I forget what it was, the type that it looked like.

I have to try to remember, but they explain that it looks like a squirrel or something like that. And then they argue that this is really a chimpanzee. It's like things like that that they do. There's a gentleman here in my home state of New Jersey.

He's a dentist. And got to meet him. He is spending his life as a dentist. He decided to start looking into the jaw bones of these fossils that they argue are the transitional forms between chimpanzees or apes to man.

One of the things that he noticed being an expert in jaws was, and I'm not talking jaws, the big shark from the movie from the 80s. Jaws like this part of your mouth that's moving like mine is to make sounds that has teeth in them.

He noticed that a lot of the teeth were filed down or changed to make it fit. The jaw bones were filed so that they would make them look either more human or less human. And he noticed that there would be times in some of the fossils where they'd have a chimpanzee skull or a human skull with a chimpanzee or human jaw bone of the opposite.

So you'd have a human skull with a chimpanzee lower part of the jaw or the reverse. Human skull with a chimpanzee bone lower jaw or a human lower jaw on a chimpanzee. It's like they play games like that.

That shows the dishonesty that they have. They know what they're doing when they do things like that. In this one documentary on the missing link, I think it was called Ida, I think is what they called it.

And in this thing, they go on to kind of show how to fit things together. They realized things didn't fit and they had to like file them down to make it fit. What are they doing? They're making assumptions.

They had like a, I think it was in that one where they had a pelvic bone, okay? The pelvis bone, pelvic bone, and they knew it didn't fit their starting presupposition. Their presupposition was evolution is true and this was a missing link.

So what they had to do to get it to work was actually kind of break it and file it down so that it fit perfectly so that this pelvic bone would fit the transitional form. That's not being honest, is it?

So what we see is evolutionists can't explain the lack of transitional forms. That's number three. Number four is that the fossil record, one of the chief basis for the theory of evolution, has been grossly misinterpreted.

It's been grossly misinterpreted. I don't want to underestimate that because this shows the dishonesty that they're doing. All right? When people argue and they try to make you feel that you're some sort of knucklehead because you don't believe in evolution, the reality is is that they have been fallen for brainwashing.

Now when someone says there's a missing link, that's brainwashing. There's nothing missing. There is no link. It is their religious belief that tells them that there must be a missing link. Therefore, they believe it's there.

Therefore, they try to prove that there is one. There's no evidence of a missing link. There's no evidence in the fossil record, and we don't see the transitional forms, which we should see if evolution is still ongoing.

These are major issues, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out and ask these simple questions if someone's trying to argue with you that evolution is true. Oh, wait. They usually don't because once you deny evolution, they usually just write you off as an idiot and walk away.

You know why? Oh, that's right. It's their religious belief. In other words, they don't want to hear the truth. They want to stay in the suppression of truth in their unrighteousness, and it's for that reason that they're going to go in any way they can to try to not think about truth.

Okay? They don't want to think about it. They don't want to see it. They don't want to hear it. None of that. Okay? This is the reality that you have to understand. Okay, so we say that just so you understand.

There's nothing for you to fear, all right, when they argue for evolution. One, there's no evidence that evolution is ongoing. Two, real science, the study of genetics, something we can observe and reproduce even in laboratories shows that we only lose information and we don't gain it.

Three, evolutionists can't explain the lack of transitional forms. I love the one letter that was written to a guy that did a book on evolution that was from a museum, and they argued, why don't you put in some transitional forms?

And he says, there aren't any. There's no evidence of some. And the person was arguing that they should draw some in. That's exactly what they do. They start with a starting point, an ape. They start with an ending point, a man, and they draw pictures.

And the only place that those pictures in the middle actually exist is in textbooks, not real science journals. Okay? It's only in the textbooks. Why? Because they're teaching a religion. All right, so the fossil record, one of the chief basises for the theory of evolution has been grossly misinterpreted.

Those are the first four. Here is the fifth, number five in your syllabus. Evolution offers no answer for morality. That's your blank there, for morality. In other words, chemical reactions do not produce morality.

Chemicals do not produce or develop an ethical system of right and wrong. I love what my buddy Sai says. He argues it this way, and I love to do this with people. It's a great illustration. You take a can of soda, you shake it up and ask them, what comes out?

You get different answers, but fizz. Okay, you get fizz. Is the fizz right or wrong? Now, some will not understand the question and be like, well, it was wrong if it wasn't your soda. No, no, no, no. That wasn't, and yeah, I say soda.

I don't call it pop. Okay? I'm not from the Midwest. I talk proper English. It's soda. Soda, pop, please. And it's not, and then those that shorten it to pop, you only call it pop because you can't handle two syllables.

Soda. It's a right. Two syllables is fine, but what we end up seeing is they'll say, well, is that morally right or wrong? Well, it's neither, right? I mean, you take soda and you shake it up. It's not morally right, and it's not morally wrong.

Why? Because it just is. That's right. It just is, and I'll often ask someone, this is the issue, because what are they saying? They're going, oh, the chemical reactions have to create morality. Why? Because they believe you're wrong.

How can you say I'm wrong? You can't even explain how there could be morality. See, chemical reactions can't produce morality, all right? So what do we end up with? We end up having the reality that we know there are things that are right and wrong.

Yeah, I know. Some of them try to argue, no, there is no right and wrong. Oh, OK. So killing little children just for fun or raping babies just for fun, that's right? No, it isn't. No one in their right mind would say that.

But not all atheists, you know, those religious people, they're not all in a right mind, because they'll actually try to argue that wrong is perfectly fine as long as they don't have to admit that they have a religious belief.

OK, that they can't explain where morality comes from. So what do they do? They are stuck with the reality of morality, but no way to explain or account for that morality. That's the issue, OK? The evolution has no offer for morality.

They cannot account for chemical reactions creating morality. And they'll argue, no, it's the chemical reactions in your brain. OK, we have chemical reactions in our brain. That doesn't make it right or wrong.

It just makes it what it is. Some will argue animals show evidence of a ethical system. OK, this may gross you out. Too bad. It just is. Vampire bats, they fly out at night, they find a cow. They sink their teeth into the cow.

They suck some blood. They come back to the nest. And one of the things that has been observed with vampire bats is that they all huddle together in a cold cave. They hang upside down. They draw close to one another.

And they have to stay close to one another to stay warm and protect each other, OK, to stay warm. But when some of them that don't have food, they weren't able to find some cow or animal to get blood, they will actually share blood one another, share some of the food.

Sorry, it's going to be gross. But they actually regurgitate the blood back into the mouth of another vampire bat. But if one vampire bat does not share, all of the bats seem to shun that bat and push him out of the collective.

And that bat stays by himself and dies. You see a similar thing with the empire penguins, where if one of them does not allow for because they all because of the cold, they huddle together and they kind of rotate around so that they all stay, you know, come to the center and work their way out to outside.

So others get in the center and they work their way in a circle, you know, day in and day out. And that's what they do. Well, when we see that, we'll see sometimes observed where one doesn't try to, you know, doesn't let others, you know, doesn't get out of the center, basically tries to stay inside and won't let others push them out so that they can stay warm.

And those will push them, that empire penguin, out altogether. They all work together, push them out, and he freezes to death and dies. That's just the reality. Is that an ethical system? Have you ever seen them set up a court of law?

Have they said lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, murder is wrong? No, you see, that's a difference. They do it by instinct because God gave them that instinct so that they can stay alive. That is not proof that chemical reactions create an ethical system.

It doesn't prove that right is right and wrong is wrong. Because what every scientist knows is that chemical reactions cannot produce immaterial things like morality. OK, so this is the thing. We realize we shouldn't be worried when people come up with evolution because evolution is easily refuted in these five simple things.

So if you remember these five simple things, not a problem. OK, one, there's no evidence that evolution, that evolution we're talking about, that man came from animals, lower animals. We have no evidence that's ongoing.

Real science like genetics proves that we can only lose information, not gain it. The fact that evolutionists have cannot explain for the lack of transitional forms. The fact that the fossil record has been grossly misinterpreted.

And that fails to show evidence of any transitional forms, too, by the way. We should see tons of evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. But what do we see when we look at the fossil record?