Genesis Conference 2023 (Genesis Apologetics) Part 2

So, one of our priorities at the ICR is to make sure that when we talk about the

Creator, we're specifically mentioning the Lord Jesus Christ. Because one of the main things that we need to remember when we're going to talk about what evolutionary theory is after and what they're trying to do, it's not just to say that creatures evolved or to explain the diversity of life on earth.

What Darwin is really after, and this is really important because you have to understand what his theory is if you're going to explain it to others, it is to point towards a totally atheistic, non -creator explanation for the origin and diversity of life as well.

That's point number one. And point number two is this, he is here to mar the image of the

Creator. He is here to slap God in the face and spit in his face.

And that's why if you have any zeal or ardor and love and affection for the

Lord Jesus whatsoever in your being, you will find his theory highly offensive.

Highly offensive. Because it is here to actually tear down the image of the

Creator. And when you think about our unseen enemy, the only thing he can really do against God is disrespect him.

He can't fight him, he can't beat him, he can't do anything, he can disrespect him. And his idea is to get us to disrespect him as well.

And so that's why we need to have a positive explanation for how creatures are really adapting because everything spins on adaptation.

Just imagine, if creatures couldn't adapt, you could never get a theory of evolution going. So we have to be able to explain this adaptation.

So I want to pick up and I want to show you a couple pictures here. Remember we ended with these cave fish, all of these blind cave fish over here.

And I was explaining that they have mechanisms which enable them to track the environment all around them.

And they have to have three elements. Three elements in them. The first was what? A sensor.

The second was internal logic. And they have to have a way to have output responses. And if creatures are programmed in the same way that when they encounter a similar environment, they will have similar responses.

And you see here on the right -hand side of the screen, I pointed out that you end up with insects, you end up with crustaceans, you end up with fish and others, all having these similar responses.

Now this is the main thing. Is that when we look at these different creatures, I'll go ahead and push this down, are you guys getting these different pictures?

No, they're not. Oh, Dan, where is it? It's advancing on the side, but not advancing over on the picture.

So Dan will come back. He'll make sure that that kind of advances to the next one here.

I've got to go back to where we were. There we go.

So this is it. We need to get to the next picture. Do you know which slide you're on?

Yeah. We'll go to this slide right there. Okay. That's good. Now you're advancing.

Good. Perfect. Perfect. Thank you, Dan. Thank you very, very much. Hey. Good. Hey, it went backwards,

Dan. No, just teasing. Just teasing, just teasing on all that. So I talk about these fish, and you can do experiments on these fish.

And when evolutionists see these fish, they specifically say that due to mutations, they have broken mechanisms.

They have broken eyes, and they have broken pigmentation. Well, let's take a look at the eyes really, really quick.

You can see there you have a sighted fish at the top and you have this pink hypopigmented, without the pigmentation, blind fish on the bottom.

The reality is it doesn't take millions of years in order for them to lose their sight. This is an experimental paper that was published in 2013, which shows you that you have a sighted fish at the top and a completely blind fish at the bottom.

And that can happen in one generation. One generation. So that is telling you that the mechanism to lose eyes is not a broken mechanism, it is engineered within them in order to live inside a cave.

And so then at ICR, we began to do work on the pigmentation. And this is what one of those cave fish looks like in real life.

They're very white, they're very hypopigmented. And evolutionists would tell you that due to random genetic mutations, the mechanism to make pigmentation has been evolved away or it's been destroyed.

It's a loss of, it's a complete loss of function in terms of that. But if creatures are designed to go into caves, they can be designed to go out of caves.

So this is a picture of the fish. And we did experiments on this fish and we put this fish back into simulated river conditions.

And after 32 days, this is what that fish looks like. Wow, quite remarkable.

And this is real work that's being done by real creationists on these fish. This fish has gained her pigmentation back in 32 days.

So the question is, was her pigmentation system broken? No, it wasn't broken.

It's telling you that these systems can be modulated. That is a big difference from broken.

Modulated systems are highly regulated, enabling creatures to rapidly self -adjust to different conditions.

Now, that's quite a remarkable thing. This is the male. We had a female and a male in the same tank.

The male was pink also. And after 32 days, the male has also become totally pigmented again.

So we repeated the experiment. We have this fish. You have a sighted fish at the top. The fish at the bottom was the one we did experiment on.

The females are a little bit bigger. You can see on this particular area. We exposed that fish to additional mimic sunlight.

And again, after about one month, there was the fish. Repigmented, totally functional system.

So we can repeat this over and over again. And if you want to see some close -ups of this fish, you can see areas of the pigmentation.

We're actually doing genetic quantification on these fish to see exactly which genes and other areas are being upregulated and downregulated in these altogether.

Now, in just a real quick summary, because then I'll be able to jump through some other slides on my second talk, you end up having two completely contradictory and contrary ways of looking at creatures.

The evolutionary way is a non -designed. It's a random mutation way in which they approach things externalistically.

They see the environment as shaping and molding creatures on that. And they see creatures not as active problem solvers, but they see creatures as basic passive modeling clay that are being shaped and molded by their environment.

They do that because if you had creatures that could adjust themselves and could modulate themselves, that sounds way too highly designed and regulated.

So that is why it's their theory which is driving their presuppositions where they see these creatures as passive modeling clay being molded.

And adaptation occurs completely in an undirected fashion in their view.

It's an undirected way in which you have to have a copious amount of genetic change, which in this room we would all have different genetic changes than if I were to expose you to different environments, some stressful ones, only the fittest would survive.

And who would that be? Me, of course. I mean, it's my story.

I get to be the fittest in this story. So it is a hit and miss trial and error system of which only a few survive.

And so in their view, adaptation and extinction go hand in hand. It is a completely death driven view.

And it is a very iterative, as it shows on the bottom, gradual and it's a very linear process.

Or as Darwin himself said, it would be due to numerous successive slight modifications.

Now what I presented at my first talk was a completely different view. It is a designed, purposeful, adaptive process.

You notice it's the exact opposite of everything that Darwin was talking about. Designed, purposeful, adaptive.

And in this particular case, we're not looking at the environment. Why would you look at the environment of what a creature would do?

You look at the creature, you look internally. And you see active creatures shaping themselves to fit a changing world.

Now the question would be, was Earth always a dynamic place even from the beginning of creation?

The answer is yes. There was day and night. The stars were given for signs and seasons.

Even in California, you get seasons. And you found out you can get a lot of snow on those things.

And then creatures were commanded to fill the Earth. Now when creatures fill other creatures' environments, do they change them for those creatures?

Yes. If I fill your environment, I change your environment for the better on that.

So we change these things all the time. So Earth was always a dynamic place and creatures always had to be adaptive.

And we don't see it as an unregulated, but adaptation as a highly regulated, rapid and repeatable process.

And that they produce solutions which are not haphazard and hit and miss or trial and error.

But with a design process, you produce solutions to problems that are highly targeted, highly purposeful and directed to solve the challenges.

Does this make sense? This is why it is a completely different view of Darwinian approach.

Therefore, we can't just say we're going to live within the Darwinian explanation and tweak it and modify it a little bit.

Darwin was completely wrong on his explanations.

You have to leave it behind and go with a fully engineered, fully designed mechanism.

And that adaptation, therefore, is something that really, really honors the Lord because adaptable things are some of the hardest things to engineer and design.

Now I'm going to fast forward to the slides because we don't need to sign up for this again because you already have, right?

Okay, so let me go through. You can read through the summing up on your notes.

And let's slip forward to, oh lunch, David Reeves, oh, Darwin's substitute, we can slip to slides, we can do this.

And let's get through to this. In other words, we were back to the creature, we want to explain how creatures can do all of these things.

And I pointed out during my last talk that words were really, really important. It's the way you characterize adaptation, which is an indicator of workmanship.

And all of these characteristics are an indication of origins. And I went through all of these highly descriptive words, which are characterizing an engineered way of adaptation.

And we went through all of those different kinds of words right there. And I emphasized that it was the correspondence between functional elements and creatures and those in man -made things that you have the same systems and creatures operating in the same way as a man -made thing doing similar ways, which is really, really indicative that these creatures were really, really designed from the beginning.

And so now picking up, this is why Richard Dawkins, who is a full atheist, a complete unbeliever, why he can say when he looks at humanity and as humanity looks at creatures, he can say that we are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elements is an indicator of premeditated crafted design.

And this is probably the most powerful reason for the belief held by the vast majority of people that have ever lived in some kind of supernatural deity.

What he's saying is this, when people look at creatures, they intuitively sense birds have wings, these are designed for purpose, and that they were highly crafted and that they were created.

And therefore, we concluded that a design -based explanation is a theistic explanation, fully theistic.

And therefore, evolutionists have to address those same things. They look at the same baby and they have to explain, how did these creatures get these features?

And in their view, it's the cumulative adaptations that produce creatures and all of their abilities.

So when evolutionists see that baby, they do not see something which was a fully functional, completed entity.

That's what we see when we see a baby or when we see a dog or when we see whatever it is. We see something that was directly created

God, fully functional, and complete. It has the ability to adapt, but the dog is complete.

It's a completed thing. When evolutionists see any creature, it is never complete.

It is always in a state of change and every feature, so you look at that little baby, every feature on that baby is an adaptation completely in a state of change.

So point number four, we have to ask, what was Darwin's purpose in forming his theory?

You have to understand it. And it is not to explain the diversity of life on Earth.

Darwin's theory was to explain, as Francis Aiello, who was the president of the American Academy of Sciences, it was to explain why creatures look so incredibly designed and why they look so highly engineered, but really weren't.

And so this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences discusses, of all things,

Darwin's greatest discovery. Why would a scientific magazine be producing this? Because scientists are inherently religious and they're just as fixated on God as anybody else.

As anybody else. And so, this is what Francis Aiello says, with Darwin's discovery of natural selection, and you notice, he's never referring to evolution broadly.

He always refers to Darwin's mechanism, the natural selector, and we'll explain why that is.

The origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science.

The adaptive features of organisms can now be explained like the phenomenon of the inanimate world as a result of natural processes, without recourse to an intelligent designer.

That is what Darwin is after. It is to kick the Lord Jesus, the designer, completely out of the picture.

And he goes on to say this, that Darwin's theory of natural selection accounts for the design of organisms.

Boom! It's not the diversity that Darwin needs to explain. He needs to explain why creatures look so incredibly designed, why they seem to fit their environments so incredibly well, which are all the evidences of a designer.

So he wants to explain not the diversity of creatures. Darwin is after explaining the design of creatures, how they look designed, and their wondrous diversity as a result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneous origin variations or mutations sorted out by natural selection.

Now there's your first clue to the substitute designer. Did you catch it in that quote?

Not? I'll back it up. From now on until the day you die, this is a long time hopefully, every time you hear the phrase natural selection, you will always see within one or two words of it, a verb.

There will always be a verb because design demands a designer and it demands an agent.

And Darwin's goal was to get a substitute agent in that could work as if it had intelligence.

Where in this quote is the verb? Sorted. Sorted. And so that's what you need to look for, young people.

Natural selection will always be doing something. It will always be acting as if it had a brain and as if it had intelligence.

Why? Because the moment you project selective ability onto something, you have projected onto it intelligence and volition.

In order to select, you must be intelligent and you must be able to make a choice.

And Darwin needed to get God's ability to do those out and he slipped them in.

So as you look at this within natural selection, suddenly natural selection can do something and natural selection can what?

Sort. What does that mean? Good ones, not so good ones. These, that.

You will always find a verb, act, favor, sort, weed.

It will always be there. Always. Because natural selection is not a real thing.

It is a way of viewing nature. It's not real.

You can't see it. It's a way that you project onto it and so he sees nature as being able to sort.

And therefore, he concludes, this was Darwin's fundamental discovery that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious.

And this is where Darwin starts to take you, all of us into this realm of irrationality, of mysticism and magic.

So in this phrase right here, since we're in the afternoon, it might as well be quiz time.

We're going to do a Q &A where you get to ask me questions. I get to ask you some. Have you in your entire life ever seen a creative process that was not conscious?

And he slips this in just like that and the world's smartest people who read the proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences just zip right over that and they say, yeah, he made a creative process that was not conscious.

My question to you is, does that make any sense at all? No, it makes no sense.

And yet people believe it. He came up with a creative, mystical process, which many of us, even as creationists, still treat as if it's real.

And he gives it conscious ability to do things like act, favor, and sort. And after people scrub their brain through that, they go from what

Dawkins says where people saw that there was a creator, and that's what the vast majority of people that ever lived, to what

Bertrand Russell said was this. But even more, oh, here's the key word, purposeless.

More void of meaning is a world which science, and he means evolutionary science, presents for our belief.

That man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end that they were achieving, that his origin, his growth, his hopes, his fears, his loves, his beliefs are all but the outcome of accidental co -loca -

What is it? Co -locations. I know, I'm just teasing you. Of atoms, adding that nature, omnipotent but blind, in the revolutions of her secular hurryings to the abysses of space, has brought forth mankind with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking mother.

This is packed with an explanation of what the world sees today.

In other words, you go from when Dawkins says that you see something in nature, and you conclude that there was an intelligent designer, to what

Bertrand Russell says after you run it through Darwin's thinking, and you come up with what? That mankind is the product of a completely blind, purposeless, chaotic, unorganized, accidental, random -

You see what words I'm putting in? I'm putting in all of these non -designed words. Process.

It is about the most anti -design mechanism that you could ever think of.

And this is why Darwinian thinking always points towards atheism.

And this is why people become hopeless in their thoughts. And this is why we end up worshipping and serving something other than God, the true creator

God, and we end up worshipping and serving, it's right here in the quote, about a third of the way up, if I could use this little laser pointer, this.

Nature. Nature becomes the substitute creator. So the question is, how does

Darwin actually do this? You need to know this. If you're going to explain it to your friends, and if you don't want to get caught in this kind of bad thinking altogether, how does he do it?

What are the nuts and bolts of what evolutionary thinking is all about? Let's jump into evolutionary theory.

I'm going to read to you three basics of evolutionary theory. These are core tenets of evolutionary theory.

As I read them, look for words and phrases and thoughts that seem to be repeated.

The random occurrence of mutations with respect to their consequences is an axiom upon which much of biology and evolutionary theory rests.

This simple proposition has profound effects on the models of evolution developed since the modern synthesis, shaping how biologists have thought and studied genetic diversity over the past century.

What is an axiom? Random occurrence of mutation. Next one. Completely different author.

The core tenet of the modern synthesis, that is, modern evolutionary thinking, is that adaptive evolution is due to natural selection.

Oh, what did I tell you to look for? Every time you hear the word till the day you die, look for a verb.

Natural selection, what? Acting. It will always be there.

Always be there. Acting on heritable veritability that originates through accidental changes in the genetic material.

Such mutations are random in the sense that they arise without reference to their advantages or disadvantages.

And then finally, a classical or Darwinian evolutionary system embodies a basic principle.

Purposeless genetic variation of reproductive individuals united by common descent, coupled with natural selection of those rare individuals that fortuitously express traits.

It's a process replete with chance. So if I were to ask you as a quiz, what words kept popping out in this?

Random, accidental, chance, broken. You want to know why?

Because engineers, real engineers, and there's one sitting in the front row here as well, they don't engineer and design in this way.

It is not broken, accidental, loss of function, and all of those things. In fact,

Stephen Jay Gould, who was the world's evolutionary theorist until his passing, this is so important.

He says, variation, in short, must be copious, small in extent, and undirected.

The specter of directed variability threatens Darwinism even more seriously than any putative failure of the other two.

Directed change in adaptation means that there's pressures that automatically trigger heritable variation in favored directions.

In other words, Darwin in thinking cannot tolerate or countenance any type of internal regulation of these creatures in and of themselves.

And so words are important, and words are able to convey ideas about origins.

And this is the key. This is the major nut and bolt of how Darwin is able to do this. It is the characterization that evolutionists consistently put on change, which is the workhorse of their, basically, propaganda of changing people.

And it is the narrative that sets thinking for many, many directions. For instance, when

Darwin saw organs that he didn't know immediately the function of, evolutionists characterized them as what?

Vestigial. Did they know that they were vestigial? No, they didn't. Does the word, quiz time, does the word vestigial carry ideas about its origins?

You better believe it does. It is the characterization which was working on people's minds, which carries the work of the propaganda.

When they saw DNA that they didn't know what the function was, they characterized it as what?

Junk. Does that have evolutionary connotations? Yes, it does.

And when they see creatures with individual features, like this fish, this paper characterizes those fish features as primitive features, even though the fish is still alive.

It characterizes them as fish. They characterize things as pseudogenes. So how they characterize things is how they are doing the work of evolution, even without strong scientific evidence for it.

And since these words are important, the words which are indicators of randomness are also conveying ideas about origins.

So if we were to play our game once again, very, very quickly, every one of these words

I'm going to put up on the screen, I pulled exactly from the scientific literature, and they had to be found in at least four papers.

First, purposeless. Second, random. Accidental.

Trial and error. Next, broken. Next, unplanned.

Cobbled together. And finally, messy. Every one of these words, which the evolutionists are using, are conveying something that they say about the origin of this.

And every time these words are being used, every time these characterizations are being used, they are indicating a process which no thinking engineer would ever, ever use or would ever point to.

And so in their view, every time they see a genetic change, they characterize it as a random mutation.

And then they consistently and repeatedly in their scientific literature by the best scientists in the world, they consistently use these characteristics over and over and over again from the time you were children all the way through college, words like purposeless, broken, random, accidental, until they get drilled into your head and every real thinking biologist automatically assumes when there is a genetic change in terms of an adaptation, they immediately assume it's something that is broken, accidental, whatever, whatever, whatever, and that somehow they can be sorted out by natural selection to somehow wield an unconscious, creative process.

Bingo. This is how Darwin takes people to this kind of thinking.

And that unconscious, creative process, which is so characteristic, so counterintuitive, it is anti -design and that he gets people, and the theory gets people to believe that you and I and everything on this planet was somehow brought about through a chaotic, purposeless process.

And this indoctrination is repeated so often and it is told over and over again that people get it into their brains that this is true, random mistakes, accidental mutations, broken processes, da -da -da -da -da -da -da, and then it somehow is sorted out by some natural selective process that when they think about it, that sounds an awful lot like Darwinian evolution and it sounds nothing like a direct creation by God because people intuitively know no thinking, rational creator would ever use such a chaotic, terrible process.

That's the link. And it's all carried by these words. And they end up having their materialistic worldview and therefore they end up having anti -design assumptions, which are their core tenets or their axioms, which interprets how they see things in nature, that every time they see a genetic change, they reflexively, boom, almost automatically, random broken change, loss of function, something is wrong, purposeless, accidental, and all of these things, and every one of those chaotic phrases is summed up in one word, mutation.

Mutation. Now, I recognize that some scientists use mutation as just any kind of genetic change, but when you hear mutation, when most people hear mutation, they're thinking what?

Broken, ruined product on those things. And that, brothers and sisters, is inherently and fundamentally anti -design because no real engineer would do this.

But how much time do I have left if I have seven minutes? Seven minutes, perfect.

Then that's coupled with their idea of selection. Origin of creatures, therefore, point number six, anti -design explanations.

Anti -design explanations are inherently and will always be anti -theistic explanations.

You can't get around it. They will always be this way. And how Darwin does things is he always reverses the engineering reality of purpose -driven targeted solutions with random hit and miss outcomes.

That is anti -design. He inverts the cause of organismal change in form from internal to external, and then he ends up personifying nature, personifying nature as a substitute agent.

Substitute agent. So how does he do that? How does he end up going to this?

Well, I'm going to skip a couple slides because you have them in your note, and they're going to explain the externalism, which we are already able to cover.

And they explain the externalistic worldview. These are wonderful quotes. Please read through them because they very succinctly explain it.

But then we're going to go to the part in your notes which has a big star on it. Darwin added a vital element of agency in his framework by projecting onto nature an intelligence and volition that we almost have there.

And Richard Lewontin, he was a colleague of Stephen Jay Gould's, a professor at Harvard University. He pointed out that Darwin's most influential example of pointing to agency in nature was this quote, was this quote in the book.

It looks like when my slides got transferred over, part of the quote got cut off right there. Darwin said of natural selection, see if this sounds like an agent, that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest, rejecting that which is bad and preserving and adding up all that which is good.

Do you see some actions of agency there? What's natural selection able to do? Scrutinize.

What else is it able to do? Reject, add up.

And so natural selection is operating where? Everywhere.

What is natural selection able to see? Everything. And natural selection is able to act invariably everywhere.

It becomes like this substitute god. Now this gentleman here, he is not an evolutionist.

He's an actual intelligent design advocate, but he had some of the most incisive comments about selection that have ever been put into print.

In his book, The Design Revolution, William Dembski said this, In short, evolutionary biology needs a designer substitute to coordinate the incidental changes that hereditary transmission passes on from one generation to the next, and there's only one naturalistic candidate on the table to wit natural selection.

Indeed, it's no accident that the word selection and the word intelligence are etymologically related.

The lek in selection has the same root as lig in intelligence. Both derive from the same

Indo -European root, meaning to gather and therefore to choose. Now everybody says that Darwin, that people had the idea of natural selection before Darwin.

They did not. Nobody, no creationist was applying intelligent ability to nature.

And this is what Dembski goes on to add. Before Darwin, the ability to choose was largely confined to designing intelligences, that is, to conscious agents that could reflect deliberately upon the possible consequences of their choices in that way.

Does that make sense? Of course it does. You wouldn't apply selective ability to the chair you're sitting on or to the carpet you're walking on.

It would only be to conscious things. He went on to say this, Darwin's claim to fame was to argue that natural forces lacking any purposefulness or provision of future possibilities likewise have the power to choose via natural selection.

In ascribing the power to choose to unintelligent natural forces, Darwin perpetuated the greatest intellectual swindle in the history of ideas.

Nature has no power to choose. If I were to ask you in this room, how many of you have been swindled?

You've all been swindled. I was swindled. For decades, I went about talking about what natural selection could do or what natural selection couldn't do.

This would have been my typical explanation. Well, natural selection is a real thing, but it's just limited.

Natural selection is real, but it can only do this. You notice what? I'm also projecting abilities for natural selection to do it.

I never did say, you know what? Darwin's fundamental mistake is that he compared nature to a human breeder.

But human breeders have a real brain, but nature doesn't. Therefore, his analogy was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

That's what I should have said. Nature has no power to choose. By projecting onto nature, all

Darwin did was try to get one god out of the picture and put another god in. He tried to get one agent out and he tried to slip another agent in.

And so instead of attributing agency to God, we end up attributing agency to mother nature.

And therefore, we're here the products of mother nature. That's what I should have been saying.

You know who says that? And we'll end with this. Point number eight. A big scientific criticism against Darwin and every one of the people you see in that picture, they're all atheists.

Darwin swapped one mystical agent, God, for another one, natural selection. You know what good atheists like?

They like to take their atheism straight. And that means they don't want to get one

God out and put another God in. They want to be true atheists.

And so after people complaining to Darwin, hey, you just substitute another God by 1868, he said, the term natural selection is in some respects a bad one as it seems to imply conscious choice.

But this will be disregarded after a little familiarity. I have also often personified the word nature for I have found it difficult to avoid this ambiguity.

No, duh. You know, you can't take things which look highly engineered and try to get away from an agent.

Therefore, he took God's agency out. And here's the quiz. He substitute what as the substitute agent for God?

Nature, natural selection. Natural selection is the means, but he's actually pointing to nature, an externalistic force which can act on, favor creatures.

By the way, where did Darwin introduce mysticism right from the beginning?

His book says on the origin of species by, it was on the origin of species.

And then the subtitle says what? Or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.

You know, everybody focuses on racism. He's not talking about races there at all. First of all, where's the circularity?

It's the preservation of favored races. Well, how do you know that they were favored? It's because they were what?

Preserved. And why were they preserved? Because they were, and how do you know that they were favored?

Because they were preserved. Okay. And here's the mysticism. You can favor. I can favor.

God can favor. Can nature favor? No. It's a mystical action by an agent.

That's why Greg Groffin, a professor at UCLA says, the trick is, he's an atheist by the way.

How do you talk about natural selection without implying the rigidity of law? We use it almost as an active participant, almost like a

God. In fact, you could substitute the word God for natural selection in a lot of evolutionary writings and you would think you're listening to a theologian.

It's a routine we know doesn't exist, but we teach it anyway. Genetic mutation and some active force choose the most favorable one.

Another atheist, Robert Reed says, indeed the language of neo -Darwinism is so careless that the word divine plan could be substituted for selection pressure in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of the argument.

Selection pressure is now given a metaphorically creative sense by modern biologists who ought to be flagellating themselves for selective pressures.

Wow. Lynn Margulis quoted in Susan Mazur's book said, Darwin was brilliant to make natural selection a sort of God -like term and expression who could replace

God. Who did it? Created life forms. He made it easy for his contemporaries to think and verbalize

Mr. Big Omnipotent God in the sky, picking out those he wants to keep. He has been conceived of as the natural selector.

He throws the others away. And finally, Stephen Talbot says, natural selection is always what?

Doing things. That's what I said. Always look for the verb. And so we hear about the mechanism of selection as well as the forces and pressures that operate it.

We learned that natural selection shapes the bodies of behaviors of organisms, builds specific features, targets or acts on particular genome regions, favors or disfavors, or even punishes various traits.

Evolutionary biologists routinely speak of natural selection as if it were an agent. Natural selection becomes rather like an occult power of the pre -scientific in age.

And finally, this one sums it up perfectly. This gentleman in his essay on natural selection says, one source of the trouble was that Darwin liked the term natural selection because it could be used as a substantive governing a verb.

Stop right there. I'll just explain it in 20 seconds. A substantive is a real thing. I can govern verbs.

You can govern verbs. He takes a concept of nature as if it can govern a verb.

That means if it can do something like a verb, can do something. And therefore, it says at the end, but such uses appeared to reify, even deify natural selection as an agent.

And all this time, you and I have been using this phrase so innocuously.

We've been saying, well, selection is real, but it can only do this. You know, we should have been saying all along, selection was

Darwin's way to project selective ability onto nature, which it doesn't have. And when he projects it on the nature, he projects intelligence and agency so that nature can act like a substitute

God. That's what it is. And it's false. And we miss it.

If I were to hold up a statue and say this statue can select or favor or whatever, you would immediately see it as idolatry.

You would say, that's an idol. That's an idol. Darwin doesn't hold up a statue.

He holds up nature, which is harder to see. But he attributes to nature the same thing that pagans attributed to Molech, Dagon or Baal or any of the others.

It is a substitute creator. That is how he slips in atheistic thinking.

And we as Christians should find it repugnant. We should.

So thank you so much for your time. And we're going to have my friend

David Reeves is going to share with us 21 verses backed by science. This is available in the back area for free.

And I'm going to go grab mine as I invite up David Reeves. Hello again.

All right. Over this brief period of time, over the next few moments,

I want to go over a few things. This is the title of my second book.

It's called 21 Verses Backed by Science. I kind of challenged myself. Well, could I just go through scriptures and randomly start reading verses?

Not randomly, but just start looking at different verses and asking the question, you know, is this scientifically accurate?

There was a very old radio serial. It was a radio program by a certain name.

Then they took that radio program and they made it into a television series that was very, very popular.

This has been many, many years ago. It was by the name of Father Knows Best. Have anyone heard of that one?

Again, it was a little bit before my time, but the concept remains the same.

There is so much truth behind that phrase. So, when

I got to, when I started researching for my second book, I realized, well, if the

Bible is what it claims to be, the inspired word of God, and Father certainly knows best, the

Father of the universe, well, then by implication, the Bible should also know best in every single thing it says.

It should be true from beginning to end. Because the Father inspired the words that the men would write to create what we call

God's Word, the Bible. So, what I wanted to do over the next few moments is go over just a series of verses.

Again, you can find, there's probably a few of these left on the back table. We've got a table back there.

Please grab one freely. While you're there, there's a little blue card.

The blue card, if you put your name and address on there, we will get you our email updates.

Once a week, we send out an email update and also a free magazine that goes out every other month called the

Creation Club Magazine. It has children's articles and activities and science articles, breaking news, things like that.

So, I would encourage you to do that before you leave today because we'd love to get you on that list and share some of the things.

It's 100 % free magazine, but share some of the things that we're doing in ministry. So, what

I want to do is I'm going to take you through very quickly, very rapidly, several verses.

We will not get to 21 verses. I can guarantee it. Paul told the

Romans that all you have to do is look around you, that creation should be evident, that we are without excuse just by seeing these attributes of God all around us, these design patterns, everything we see.

So, what we're going to do is we will go verse by verse and we'll ask ourselves the question, does the

Bible know best? I'm going to need your help with this just a little bit as we say the Bible knows best.

Can you repeat it with me? The Bible knows best. That's perfect. All right, so let's start at the very beginning.

A very good place to start. Genesis 1 says, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

Wow, that's pretty simple. Okay, I'm sure most of us here today would probably say, sure,

God created everything, but does the Bible know best? It's interesting that even

Dr. Henry Morris once noted in the first verse of scripture, the words in the beginning is the beginning of time.

It's the beginning of everything. It's the origin of time itself. In the beginning, God created the heaven, there's space, and the earth, there's matter.

So in other words, the origin of time, space, and matter, the three basic components of the entire universe can be found in the first verse of scripture.

I think that's great. In other words, the Bible knows best. But when we realize that the currently accepted in the atheistic community, one of the theories that is currently accepted in cosmology is called the

Big Bang Theory. Now, the Big Bang Theory states that around 14 billion years, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a dense point, which then rapidly expanded, making space and time as it went.

So in other words, it's an idea on how space and time might've come about. So I always say, well, how do you say this came about?

Oh, well, 14 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into dense point that started rapidly expanding, making space and time as it went.

Wait, can you just repeat that one more time? Oh, 14 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated...

Wait, wait. All the matter in the universe? Where did that matter come from?

Did you know that atheism really has no explanation whatsoever as to where all of the matter in the universe came from?

No explanation. So in other words, the Big Bang model is an attempt to explain how space and time took on its current shape, but does not even attempt to explain the actual origin of the universe, all the matter that's there.

Does that sound like a great scientific theory to you? It doesn't to me.

In other words, what I'm telling you is that the first verse of scripture explains the origin of space, time, and matter.

That means that the Bible knows best. And again, that's just a very basic concept.

Jeremiah 8 talks about a creature called the sea swallow. This sea swallow,

I'll just read you the verse and then we're going to ask this question. The stork in the heaven knows her appointed times, the turtle dove, the crane, and the swallow.

Let's talk about the sea swallow for a moment, or the arctic tern. The arctic tern is a seabird or a sea swallow.

There's about a million of them out there on planet earth right now. They live approximately 20 to 30 years.

They will mate for life. They're incredible creatures and they take a particular course, just like other birds, where they'll go south and follow that warmer weather and then they'll come back north as the warmer weather comes back towards us.

And so they migrate like many other birds. But their migration path is quite extraordinary.

I'm going to put up on the screen a picture of a world map. You see, these arctic terns might start in Greenland or the

Netherlands and they will pick a path southward along the African coast. Now, as they get towards the southern tip of Africa, they will turn eastward and they will travel as far as Australia, sometimes

New Zealand, before they then turn south again where they will spend their summers, our winters, in Antarctica.

That's right. When it's cold up here, it's actually warm in the southern hemisphere and vice versa.

Okay, summer and winter alternate like that from the southern and northern hemisphere.

Okay, so they're spending their summers, our winters, traveling around in some of Antarctica before it finally starts to get really cold down there and they start their northern migration, which many times takes them in an

S -shaped curve up the coast of America to find their way right back to where they started.

Now, I don't know if you've made this connection yet, but that's a long ways.

That's a global map. If you were to track these Arctic turns, you would realize that they're traveling approximately 56 ,000 miles every single year.

And let's see if we have very observant audience members today. How long do they live?

20 to 30 years. 20 to 30 years, just do the math. That means that these Arctic turns are traveling 1 .5

million miles during their lifetime. Talk about some frequent flyer points right there.

Here's what I'm telling you. Does the Arctic turn, does the sea swallow know where to go, what to do, how to find its way back?

Does it seem to have a built -in GPS where it can find its way 56 ,000 miles back to the same location?

Yes. In other words, what I'm telling you, you can help me out with this, is the Bible knows best.

Now, Psalm 139 says, and listen to the verbiage here, because this is really important. It says,

Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect. And in thy book, all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

But did you know that we can actually talk about DNA as a book, basically the blueprints that makes you who you are?

It makes you 100 % unique. You know, when we realize that geneticists can tell you there are trillions upon trillions of combinations that makes up our

DNA, if we were to write out our DNA sequence, our genetic code in a book, it wouldn't fit just one book.

No, it would take about 1 ,200 encyclopedia volumes. That's a lot of books.

So that's inside of you right now. That's inside of you right now.

But maybe 1 ,200 encyclopedia volumes of information isn't enough to really wake you up, because we've all had lunch and now we're a little bit full.

And now we're thinking, well, yeah, that's a lot of information. We'll get this. That 1 ,200 encyclopedia volumes of information can be found in nearly every cell of your body right now.

That is enough information to fill up the entire Library of Congress, all 35 million books, multiple times over.

And it's inside each and every one of us right now. There is a book that was written that tells us who we are.

DNA is completely one of a kind. Your iris and your retina contain unique patterns that are not found anywhere else on planet

Earth. No two palm prints are alike and every fingerprint is unique. Who was it?

Dr. Dan Biddle? I can't remember. Who was it that had you hold up your thumb? Do a little experiment as we began this morning.

You remember that? I want you to hold up your thumb right now. Look at your thumbprint. It is completely unique.

The one on your other thumb is slightly different, completely unique. Every fingerprint is unique, but the fact that your thumbs are unique, do you know what that means?

That means you are thumb body. The psalmist,

David, says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. He said, marvelous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well.

That's actually Tennessee language right there. That my soul knoweth right well. It's right there.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made. We have a book inside of us and the Bible really does know best.

Leviticus 17 speaks of the life of all flesh being the blood thereof. Now, when

I was researching for my second book, just a short book, but I realized that I had a problem because when

I read that verse, I said, no, no, no, this can't be right. No, I must be missing something.

It's no, no. Oh, no. Because you know what? Not all life has blood. So did we just find an error in the

Bible? And I said, no, the Bible knows best. It can't be. I must be missing something. The Bible is going to be scientifically true.

And I kept reading it over, reading it over. The life of all flesh is the blood thereof.

And I realized I'm not thinking about the word flesh because guess what? Yes, there are some creatures that don't have blood.

Those creatures don't have flesh. Like sea sponges, things like that.

So not only does the Bible know best, but it is accurate enough to put the word flesh in there to make sure that it is scientifically accurate.

Is the science a Bible textbook? I always tell people, absolutely not. Science textbooks have to be updated every year.

Now, you know, before we move on to the other, I'm just going to pull out one more point out of this. Something I think we can learn from, all right?

That's been there for thousands of years. We have been reading this over and over and over again for thousands of years.

Did you know that the average adult human contains about 160 ounces of blood?

That sounds trivial. David, why do we need to know 160 ounces of blood? Why are you teaching us this?

Well, you know, a couple of hundred years ago, there was this thing called bloodletting. In colonial times, it was pretty common.

They would take blood out of people to try to heal them of certain diseases. Well, guess what? In the hours just before George Washington died, they took out approximately 138 ounces of his blood.

In other words, they took out nearly every ounce of blood in his body and he died.

If only they would have read Leviticus 17, George Washington would still be alive today. No, wait, maybe not.

The point is the Bible knows best. If we were to read Leviticus 11, it says, every earthen vessel where a dead thing falls, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean and you should break the pot.

So in other words, if a dead animal falls into a piece of earthenware pottery, break it. The very next verse says, well, if it's clothing or something that you won't eat out of, don't worry about it, wash it, use it again.

Why did God say this and command the Israelites? Is he just trying to put these arbitrary rules and regulations?

Is he a malicious God trying to create things that are nonsensical so that then he can catch someone breaking it and punish them?

Is that the kind of God we have? Or does the Bible know best? You see, we didn't know about germs until a fellow by the name of Louis Pasteur and several other very brilliant scholars came along and studied these things.

I've been to Israel about a dozen times. I have picked up hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pieces of pottery.

Now, every time you find a piece of pottery, if you pick it up, there's at least a 99 % chance that that pottery is unglazed.

How many of you know what glazing is in pottery? That's right. Glazing is this process which actually seals the earthenware nature of the pottery.

Am I correct here? It seals the earthenware nature of the pottery, which kind of makes it impervious to these germs and microbes and things.

But the Israelites, they couldn't afford, they didn't have what it took to glaze all of their pots.

So most of them were unglazed. They were earthen jars just in its rawest form.

And if an animal comes along there and dies in the pot, there's no telling what diseases it died from, right?

So the very next time they eat out of the pot, it's actually passing on the diseases that that animal had to all of the children of Israel.

And when you got a lot of children of Israel all in one place, those diseases kept getting passed on and passed on and passed on.

So what does God say? He says, if a dead thing falls into a pot, just break the pot. It's pretty simple. It was for their own good.

And yet it was only in the 1800s that Louis Pasteur, a Bible -believing Christian, by the way, who believed in God's creation, he came along and said, well, maybe, you know what?

There are germs and microbes and things that are passing on these diseases. Absolutely. Did God need to tell us that in this verse?

No. He doesn't have to explain himself. It was for their own good that he wrote these things.

We need to take a lesson from that. God doesn't have to explain himself. Whatever you're going through, he knew it.

He knew you were going to go through this. But he said, you know what? Even though I may not tell you exactly the reason you're going through this,

I will take you through this stronger and I know exactly what is happening. That's an important lesson that we have to remember.

And it's an important lesson to remember that in the case of Leviticus 11, the Bible knows best.

That was good. That was good. I like that. We're catching on here. Job 26 speaks of God stretching out the north over the empty place and hanging the earth upon nothing.

Did you know that there were many ancient cultures, the ancient Hindus, for instance, who believed that the earth was a flat pancake -like disc?

That's right. It was a pagan belief. The flat earth was a pagan belief that there was this flat pancake -like disc.

And this flat pancake -like disc sat on the tops of giant elephants.

And these big elephants are standing on a much larger turtle.

And the huge massive turtle is standing, is floating in a giant pool of water.

That was some of the ancients' beliefs in the earth. But what does the

Bible say? Says that God hangs the earth upon nothing. God indeed has hung this earth with the blackness of space all around.

It is a beautiful planet designed for life, designed for us to inhabit.

And yet we often forget this. Now, how would the ancients, thousands of years ago, have realized that God hung the earth upon nothing?

They wouldn't have. That's the concept of divine inspiration. The Lord in his infinite wisdom gave them those words so that they would write down the accurate truth about our universe.

That God hangs the earth upon nothing. In other words, what I'm saying is that even in that verse, the

Bible knows best. Now, there's a verse in the book of 2

Peter that says that the world that then was being overflowed with water perished. It's a global flood account that is spoken of as literal history.

It was a catastrophe that reshaped the planet. But does the

Bible know best? Is that real science? Is it good science? Surely we would have seen evidence of these things all around the world if it really was such a devastating event.

Let's ask that question. Does the Bible know best? Bent strata is found all over the world and a lot of the sites have these smooth folds that bend at extreme angles.

You see the picture. That's evidence of a catastrophe. I was up in British Columbia, Canada on a one -week speaking tour and I showed this photo.

Someone came up to me afterwards. He said, David, right down the road we have this one. And he gave me the picture on the left.

And he's like, that's even more extreme. Look at that smooth fold and everything is just bent back in on itself.

I'm like, wow, can I use that? He gave me the picture to use. I lead geology tours in Eastern Tennessee.

Last year, I led one up to a coal seam in an old railroad and there was this piece of bent strata that was 100 % vertical and then right about where I'm standing it turns and becomes horizontal again.

These kind of things are actually fairly common in geology around the world. How do you get bent strata?

You see, you've got multiple layers of hardened strata. Hardened rock that have been lithified, turned to stone and they're bent, smoothly folded.

It's kind of like these multiple layers of plywood, wood that's been glued together, hardened together and yet this is straight.

So here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna set the microphone down and I'm going to give you an example of how over millions of years of slow geological time we can turn lithified rock or plywood, hardened wood into smoothly bent strata just like you see.

Are we ready? This is science. Do you see a problem?

We could repeat this experiment hundreds of times. We could repeat this experiment millions of times and we would always get the same effect.

Hardened layers of strata do not simply smoothly bend, do they? So how do you get what we see on the screen?

There is one way. You bend it while it is still soft, pliable mud.

Now how do you get that much soft, pliable mud? We're talking about hundreds of feet of strata.

How does that happen? Perhaps when the fountains of the great deep broke open and the windows of heaven were open and tremendous amounts of mud, sand, silts and sediments started stirring up and washing across the continents and tsunami -like waves laying down layer after layer after layer after layer of these muddy sediments which then when the mountains started to form were catastrophically buckled during the upheavals of the flood and only after that did it turn to stone.

Did it lithify? It's the only way to get it. To which the atheist, the skeptic might say, ah,

David, no, no. What you don't understand is that if we were to thrust these layers down several miles below the surface of the earth, well, the heat and the pressure would be so great that you could turn this solid hard rock into a pliable material which would then bend smoothly to which

I would answer, yes, you are correct. But at that point, when it popped back up again, it would not be sedimentary anymore.

It would be metamorphic or igneous. It would not look anything like this. This was clearly catastrophically laid down and bent while it was still pliable.

In other words, all over the world in geology, what we see is that the

Bible knows best. To which I get to my favorite example.

This may be one of my favorite examples. This is Matthew Fontaine Mare. The story of his life goes something like this.

You know, Matthew was in bed one day. He was extremely ill and his daughter had a Bible.

She comes in and she says, I'm just gonna sit down here next to the bed and I'm gonna read you some scripture, try to comfort you, try to make you feel better.

So she opens up randomly to Psalm 8. What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou visitest him, for thou hast made him a little lower than the angels and has crowned him with glory and honor.

Whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea, O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth.

Now, when she got to that part, Matthew sat up in bed. As ill as he was, he sat up and he said, wait a second, paths of the sea?

Paths of the sea? He said, if I ever get out of this bed, I'm gonna figure out what those paths of the sea are.

Matthew, he got well. And he devoted his life's effort to charting the ocean currents and the paths of the sea, paths that ships still follow to this day.

This is a global map right here. And what you see, the green lines and the orange lines, those are those paths of the sea.

Paths that were just waiting to be discovered until one man got brave enough to say,

I'm gonna take the Bible at its word. I'm gonna believe that it says what it means and it means what it says. And I'm gonna go out there and discover what it's talking about.

There may be some of you in this audience right now, especially the young ones. You're looking at all of this and you're saying, what am

I supposed to do with my life? What am I supposed to do with my life? Maybe you wanna go into some type of science. Maybe you already are studying some field of science or biology or geology.

I don't know what it is, but I'm gonna encourage you, be a Matthew Fontaine Maury. Take what the

Bible says as truth and go out there and you can discover remarkable things.

Guess what? In Virginia, there's a monument erected in Matthew Fontaine Maury's honor. It says, to Matthew Fontaine Maury, the pathfinder of the seas, the genius who first snatched from the oceans and the atmosphere, the secret of their laws, his inspiration, holy writ.

That's what that monument says. You know what it's actually saying? The Bible knows best.

We've only got a few minutes left. The Bible is doing pretty good when it stacks up to the good science test,

I think. I'm pretty impressed with it. Could the same thing be said for evolutionary theories?

I think it's worth a consideration, right? Merriam -Webster defines religion as a cause, a principle, or a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, extreme fervor and faith.

You know what? I'm just gonna have to say this. Atheists believe a lot of things. Atheists believe that the universe started about 14 billion years ago in some magical thing called the

Big Bang. They believe that wholeheartedly. You know, atheists also believe that stars coalesced from dust clouds and gas clouds over millions of years and formed the rest of the universe.

They definitely believe that. Most atheists believe that humans have evolved over time and chance and natural selection over millions of years and that we are nothing more than smart amoebas, basically.

They definitely believe that. Almost 100%, not all, but most.

You know, atheists believe a lot of things. They have a system of beliefs. But you know what? To be a religion, those beliefs have to be held to by faith.

Well, not one of those things I mentioned is a fact -based belief. There was no one around 14 billion years ago to see the universe create itself.

Was there? No. That's a faith -based belief. No one has actually ever documented a star being formed.

We see them blow up all the time. I mean, I've caught supernovae in M51.

I've seen many supernovae, but we've never actually documented any star forming.

That is a faith -based belief. We have never seen an amoeba turn into an astronaut.

We have never seen a hippopotamus turn into a giraffe. We have never seen a fish turn to a bird, turn to an ape.

Okay? That is a faith -based belief. And yet, these faith -based beliefs held to by these atheists are held to with ardor, with extreme fervor.

You go to most of the university campuses around the U .S. and around the world, maybe not this one, but most.

Way over 50%. And you try to question one of those faith -based beliefs, you say, professor, you know, how can you back that up?

You're going to be met with extreme fervor and ardor. These beliefs are held to with extreme ardor.

What does that make? Evolution. You said it,

I didn't. I just want to remind you of a couple of things. Again, the blue cards on the back table with my book.

Make sure you drop one of those in the little cardboard box next to it. And I'll make sure you get the free email updates and the free

Creation Club magazine every other month. And now, we've talked about the origin of science.

We've talked about the origin of time, space, and matter. Arctic turn, blood is life. Pass of the sea, break the pot. Earth hangs on nothing. Behemoth and Leviathan are real creatures.

Geology confirms a global flood. Today, we've talked about a lot of different things, haven't we? But I always like to conclude with astronomy.

It's one of my greatest passions. And for that, I actually, I've got a couple of slides to show you, but then

I'm going to need the help from a couple of volunteers. Can I have a, you? Yes, please. Anyone else?

Several more volunteers. Can I have a couple more volunteers? Yeah, yeah, I need everybody's help. Come on over here.

Take a handful and start passing these out. These miniature telescopes that I'm having you pass out right now are going to be very important in only a few moments time, all right?

So, you're doing a very important job right here. Make sure you take one for yourself. And we probably won't have time to get everyone one.

And I know you're jealous if you don't get a miniature telescope. Now, you may be looking right now, you're like, David, actually, that looks a lot like a coffee stirrer.

No, it's not. That is a miniature telescope. All right. So, again,

I told you a few moments ago how astrophotography, the study of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, cosmogony, and astrophotography in particular were some of my passions at an early age.

How I started taking photos of the great Orion nebula, how I started taking photos of all of these other nebula planets, galaxies, everything that's out there.

And I realized that there was a lot that we can learn just from the cosmos itself, but not by worshiping the cosmos.

Yeah, I get invited on television programs and radio interviews a lot. And they're like, now we have

David Reeves, the astrology expert. And I'm like, wait a second. Astrology is the belief that you can divine your future from the stars, the planets, and their motions.

Astronomy is actually looking at and studying the heavenly bodies.

And we can learn a whole lot by looking at and studying the heavenly bodies. All right.

So here's what I want to do as we conclude. I want to look at the number of stars in our universe.

And this is a Bible knows best moment at its finest, right? Because there is a passage in Genesis 15 that says, look now toward heaven and tell the stars if you're able to number them.

Did you know that we've actually tried to estimate the number of stars in the observable universe?

It's just the observable universe. Just the ones we know about. We don't know about the ones we don't know about. Best estimates so far come to around 10 sextillion stars.

That's a 10 with 21 zeros after it. That's a big number. Now you're like, oh, yeah, I've seen bigger numbers.

Well, let me put this into perspective. All right. If you were to pick a grain of sand up on any beach or in any desert anywhere on this planet, you could pick that grain of sand up and confidently say for each grain of sand, there are at least a thousand stars.

This represents at least a thousand stars. So I think it's safe to say that just according to Jeremiah 33, yeah, we'll never know the actual number of stars.

But there's a lot of them. So the Hubble Space Telescope, ultra deep field, decided to do an experiment.

They said, could we take a photo of deep space in between two stars?

So here's what I want you to do. I want you to hold your miniature telescope up at arm's length. Not right here. You poke your eye out if you do that.

Hold it up at arm's length and point it to the star field on the screen. Is there a possibility we can get the lights down?

Is that easy to do? I don't know if that's easy to do or not. But if it's possible,

I want you to hold it towards the screen, arm's length, and try to find a star.

Now, that's going to be very difficult. Some of you might have found one. If you found one, I want you to point it in between two stars.

Point it towards the blackness of space in between two stars. The Hubble Space Telescope looked at an area of sky just as large as you can see right now through your miniature telescope.

They took a picture of that area, just that tiny point of light that you can see in a dark area of space.

And they said, well, if we take an 11 -day exposure, we accumulate light for 11 days, is it possible that we could actually catch a star that we've missed or something else that we've missed?

Maybe there's something there just waiting to be discovered. And after 11 days of accumulating light, this is the picture that they got.

In that tiny speck that you just saw through your miniature telescope, they found 10 ,000 galaxies, not stars.

These are galaxies. Every point of light, every pinprick that you see is a galaxy containing several hundred billion stars.

Do the heavens declare the glory of God? We can have the lights back up. The Bible knows best.

Very good. You got ahead of me on that one. You know what? Even more than the Bible knows best, we have an awesome creator.

Because there's a passage in the book of Psalms that says that not only did God make all of them, he has a name for each and every one of them.

So as we conclude, I'm going to leave you with an analogy. Hebrews 3 says,

Every house is built by some man, but he that built all things is God.

Does the Bible know best? You're walking through the woods one day, and you happen upon a clearing.

And in this clearing, there is a beautiful cabin. This cabin is very picturesque. It's something that you would find in a calendar.

It's something that you would find in a coffee table book. And you instantly think to yourself, first thing that crosses your mind is, you know,

I bet you millions of years ago, there was a tornado that tore through these woods, and it started snapping trees, and the trees fell in the shape of the cabin walls.

And then I'm guessing that sometime over the past several million years that there must have been a lot of sand buildup and deposits.

And that sand built up along the entire walls of the cabin, and then lightning struck the sand.

Do you know what happens when lightning strikes sand? Makes glass. That's right. So it must have made the glass windows of the cabin.

Okay. And then over millions of years, there must have been some sort of a hurricane or something, and it blew the sand away.

And there you have it, a beautiful cabin in the middle of this clearing, just sitting there.

Isn't that amazing? We would laugh. We would laugh the greatest skeptic on earth.

Try to tell them that story. Watch what happens. They're going to laugh you out of the park. They're going to be like, yeah, David, you got to be kidding me.

Everybody knows somebody built that house. Oh, isn't that interesting? Yeah.

Every house is built by somebody. But if that's obvious, let me tell you what's really obvious.

He that made all things is God. Everything we see around us in this universe had a designer, had a creator.

You have a designer. You have a creator. He knew you from the very beginning.

When as yet there was none of you in existence, he wrote your book. He put it inside of you and he loves you.

In addition to that, he loves you so much that he sent his only begotten son to this earth to live, die, and be raised again so that we could be a part of his family for eternity.

That's how much he loves you. Jesus himself said, have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?

He's like, there is a creator. Yes, you are designed with purpose.

He also confirmed that we can believe the writings of Genesis. And this Genesis conference,

I think is so important that we understand how it all connects together. Again, the

Bible knows best. The Bible is the word of God and God certainly knows best. He's known it all from the beginning, but then he gives us the mental capacity and the curiosity to study his creation.

Don't you think that's amazing? He's like, do you think an ape sits there and philosophizes about his existence?

What about a bunny rabbit? What about a fish? Do you think one of those blind cave fish, they're like, you know, when

I grow up, I'm going to try to figure out the existence of the universe. No, he gives us the mental ability and the curiosity to study his creation and to give him the glory for it.

And if we don't take that opportunity, if we don't take that out and be champions for the truth of God's word, if we don't use these types of things to witness, to be a better, more effective witness, then we're missing out on something.

I have people come up to me all the time. They say, David, you know what? That's all good and all, but we don't need it.

We're Christians. And to that, I respond, I know where you're going with this.

Yeah, absolutely. I have faith that God is real, that Jesus really did live and die, that he was raised again.

Yes, I have faith. Here's the thing. Our Christianity is not a blind faith.

The evidence is all around us. And to conclude, I will just say this.

Do you think all of these things that we've read today that were written thousands of years ago, these are accidents?

I have atheists and agnostics come up to me all the time. David, you're one of those Christians. You just believe in this ancient book of fables written by goat herders, don't you?

To which I reply, you know what? You've got a portion of that correct. I do believe in an ancient collection of writings that were written by goat herders, by shepherds, by poets, by kings.

You know what they weren't? They weren't scientists. But they got the science 100 % correct.

They got the history 100 % correct. They got the prophecy 100 % correct.

And thank the Lord, they got the gospel 100 % correct. Do you think that's by accident?

Or do you think that we have an intelligent designer who created us with purpose, who inspired men to write his words so that thousands of years down the road, everything would be 100 % correct?

I believe that. And to that I say, the Bible knows best. Thank you.

Okay, are you guys ready? We are about to wrap this up. I've got the next 20 minutes or maybe 25 or 30 minutes if the time police doesn't grab me.

And then we have our Q &A panel. I think Joe got 40 or 50 questions in the back, so we will hit those soon.

But I'm gonna take the next 20 minutes and talk to you guys about Noah's Flood, one of the most passionate topics that I have in my life because it was really, really involved in my conversion story.

I was saved when I was 11, kind of walked away from my faith until I was about 17, but I've been locked back in and walking with Christ since age 17.

But I didn't know that Genesis was true history until about 10 years ago. And the evidence for Noah's Flood is what pulled it off for me.

Just by way of reminder, all of our students in the back, if we still have any left, are free to students.

If you're kindergarten to college, all of our books or DVDs are free to you guys. And then if you are an adult, you can go ahead and pay.

That would be great. We have our movie about Noah's Flood coming up. It'll be this year. It's gonna come to theaters probably in December.

It's called The Ark in the Darkness. I mentioned it earlier today. And we've got a book that covers a lot of the evidence we're gonna be going over in that movie and also in my talk.

We do have the leading flood movie right now on YouTube. It's called Noah's Flood and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics from Pangaea to Today.

Has about 2 .7 million views. And in 22 minutes, it's gonna cover a lot of the research

I'm gonna go through right now. So let's first start about the Genesis Flood timeline.

I tried to make one single slide. And again, this is probably not in your handouts. Send me an email,

I'd be happy to share the slide. But in one slide, we see the whole layout for the process of the flood here.

So the flood was not just a 40 -day process. It was a 371 -day process.

The water inundated the earth, zenith at about day 150. Then the water subsided for about 150 days.

Then earth dried out for 70 days. The flood process, we have the word baka here is when we have the breaching or the fountains of the great deep opening up, the water rising.

Then we have the peak and here's all the scriptures that go along with that. Then we have sheet flow that's coming off causing all kinds of erosion after the water's zenith.

And then we have channelized flow that happened after that that caused all types of geological features we see like in the middle of America with a lot of channelized flow.

But in one slide there, we have the whole summary of Noah's Flood. Let's first talk about the extent of the fossil record.

I think this is a very obvious thing for those of us who have studied the fossil record, but we have billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

Every single one of these dots that you see up on your screen is not just a fossil find, but a fossil bed.

Most of them are mega beds. So you can see the ones in the middle of America there, but each one of these green dots represents a huge fossil find, in most cases with thousands and thousands of fossils.

Where did they all come from? What mechanisms caused them to be there? We can go in the middle of America and we can see the

Jurassic layers, the Morrison Formation, which is about a 700 ,000 square foot area.

Then we have all these layers laid down and then we have the Cretaceous layers layered heaped right on top of them.

What on earth could bring up that much mud and stratify it in layers? Here we have

Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, same thing. We could fly a helicopter through that ravine.

Huge, huge layers. We have a lot of erosional channels that are here, but a lot of flood layers that were laid down there.

We have example after example all over the earth, but there's a couple interesting things I want you to notice.

That in most cases where you look at dinosaurs and you study them using the field, what's called taphonomy, or studying the conditions in which fossils are buried, we see that the dinosaurs are buried in a matrix of three products, ash, mud, and sand.

So I had to ask myself, what huge cataclysmic process could take and bury dinosaurs in hundreds of feet of mud, under hundreds of feet of mud, in a matrix of ash, mud, and sand?

Those three products, not any other product. And I'm going to show you the mechanisms of Noah's Flood today that are responsible for that.

So there we can see by scale, we have a couple of cars. We can see these huge stratified layers.

That is in the Hell Creek Formation, where we find a ton of dinosaurs. But the interesting thing is, a lot of these sites have bentonite.

Huge, huge piles of ash. More ash than we can even fathom. These dinosaurs are buried in these three different products.

What on earth could do that? For example, if you go to Dinosaur Provincial Park in Canada, we see a huge area there.

You can look for a span of 14 miles. I've been to this location. 14 miles. And as far as you can see, you see these hoodoos, layered up mountain heaps of mud, where we find dinosaurs buried with mammals, and fish, and oysters, and clams, and all kinds of different species.

Fish, turtles, mammals, amphibians, all buried together. So you're looking out over this 14 -mile expanse.

There's tens of thousands of dead ceratopsian dinosaurs. And there are herds upon herds of ceratopsian dinosaurs.

And you're looking over this area thinking, well, if the dinosaurs are under 50 feet of mud or 100 feet of mud, how much higher did the water have to be to deposit the creatures under 100 feet of mud?

It's then you do quickly gain the scale of what happened during Noah's Flood. We also have species -wide extinction right in the middle of America.

Here's a picture of every dinosaur species that's been found in the Morrison Formation. Every single one of those creatures are buried in those layers, killed at the same time.

Dozens and dozens and dozens of different types of species of dinosaurs all buried in the same area the same time.

So what in the world could do this? What could, you know, if the Noah's Flood was a worldwide event, we would expect to find dinosaurs that died at the same time, died together, and in the similar regions.

So let's study to see if this is actually true. If you go in and look at all the hadrosaurs, so we have here all the hadrosaur fossils that have been found in the middle of America.

I'm gonna play that clip again. You can go up and see, here we go. Hadrosaurs, the whole family, all those dots are where the hadrosaurs have been found.

And then we see the blue layers are the Jurassic layers. The Cretaceous layers are piled on top. And then we have some of the dinosaurs on the downslopes there.

A massive fossil bed where all the hadrosaurs are found. Well, it's not just the hadrosaurs.

It is also the Allosaurus. Keep your eyes on all these blue dots here. Every one of these blue dots are where the

Allosaurus species have been found. We've got some down here, some in the middle. Keep your eyes on those dots and I'll fly in the sauropods.

Buried in the same place. Same time, same place, different creature. What about Stegosaurus?

Same place, different creature. And we fly in all three at the same time. What on earth could take those three different species, all of them at the same time in the same location and kill them all together?

When have we ever seen in nature a bunch of deer cuddle up with a bunch of grizzly bear with a bunch of raccoons and lie down in a watery grave together and be covered with 50 feet of mud?

We're looking at an international scale, worldwide cataclysm here. When you start digging into the details, it gets even more convincing.

Here's a guy that was even featured, his character was in the Jurassic Park movies named Jack Horner, a worldwide paleontology expert.

He writes this interesting book called Digging Dinosaurs. And he says, you know, he even labels it.

If you can see that right up here, it says the search for the, that search that unraveled the mystery of baby dinosaurs.

So he writes in this book and he says, hey, I found this place where there's, that 1 .25

miles long goes east from west, where they found 30 million fossils representing 10 ,000

Myosaura dinosaurs. So just think about that for a minute. A mile and a quarter, that's what, maybe a 30 minute walk, 40 minute walk, maybe an hour walk.

And the whole time you're walking for a half hour, as fast as you can, you're looking down for a mile and a quarter and you're seeing 30 million deposited bones representing 10 ,000 creatures stretched out over a mile long.

What on earth could do that? He describes the taphonomy of these creatures and said, when he was looking at these bones and he says, well, how could any mudslide, no matter how catastrophic, had the force to take a two or three ton animal that had just died and smash it around so that its femur still embedded in its flesh of its thigh could split lengthwise.

But here's the most amazing thing about Jack's find. There were no young, no babies, no eggs, no youngsters.

Every single one of those 10 ,000 dinosaurs was at least nine feet long.

It was an entire adult herd of Malaisaur dinosaurs, 10 ,000 of them that were bolting and running for their lives because they were seeing and experiencing something catastrophic and sudden.

Something that was so sudden that they couldn't plan for it, that all the adults get up and run and all 10 ,000 of those creatures, a whole herd of them were found spread out, killed over about one and a quarter mile area.

Sounds to me like Noah's Flood could be a good responsible explanation for that. So when we look at all of these dinosaur burials, again, this whole region in the middle of America takes up 14 states, three partial countries, one million square miles.

This is the dinosaur kill zone in the middle of America. So when people ask me, why do you believe in Noah's Flood?

I say, well, 14 states in the middle of America filled with dead dinosaurs mixed with marine life.

How could you do that? It had to be a worldwide flood. That's a huge, huge area, 1 ,800 miles, 1 ,000 miles wide, definitely a

Noah's Flood kill zone. So when we look at the Bible, there is one key verse I wanna hone you in on and it's

Genesis 7, 11. They say here in the 600th year of Noah's life, in the second month, the 17th day of the month, already it's sounding like a history book, on the same day were all of the fountains of the great deep broken up and the windows of heaven were open.

So the key is that something started, the commencement of the flood started on the ocean floor, in the ocean floor.

These guys, this panel of six PhD experts figured out exactly what that was in the 1990s.

They framed a theory called catastrophic plate tectonics and it matches with earth science in a way that's just uncanny.

We're talking about way beyond the preponderance of evidence. They have an iron clad case of exactly how

Noah's Flood went out. And here's what it might've looked like when we have the fountains of the great deep breaking open on the ocean floor.

This would have happened worldwide. There are 40 ,000 miles around the earth of these linear rifts that have exploded that would have come up with jet stream of these linear rifts going all over the world with super critically heated water causing wave after wave of tsunami to come up.

And we know this because Pangaea broke apart and it broke apart catastrophically and quickly with the continents moving apart at about five miles per hour.

This is Dr. John Baumgardner's model. A lot of expensive money has been paid over this

Terra model that he built because people are using this model to go find oil and coal discovery because it really plans out exactly what happened during Noah's Flood where you can find those valuable resources.

So he's got it modeled and now we can look all over the world. It covers about 1 .6 times over.

We can go see where these linear rifts are today. This is Genesis 7 -11 right on your screen where the fountains of the great deep broke open.

Super critically heated magma came up and split the earth and it caused wave after wave of tsunami.

We have the mid Atlantic Ridge. We have a bathymetric map here we can take from a national geographic.

We can see what the ocean floor looks like without the water and here we have the mid Atlantic Ridge with all these perpendicular kind of stretch marks going on here.

This rift itself is 10 ,000 miles long and we can see how the continents perfectly fit back together and we have the same creatures that are buried over here that are the same creatures buried over here.

It's called fossil correlation. So we have creatures that are buried over here in the same mud that were killed by the same mud of the creatures that were living over here.

That's how we know what happened rapidly. So we have seafloor spreading that happened during the flood.

That's what it would have looked like graphically. We've got the magma coming up and it's gonna be creating new seafloor that's spreading the seafloor to the left and to the right of the linear rifts pushing the continents apart at about five miles per hour.

So when this happens, the new seafloor is created. It hits the landmass and dives under and at that juncture right there is where we have a lot of volcanism generated from the subducting diving plates.

And we have the tsunamis that are happening at this binding point right here. As the seafloor is spreading, it hits the landmass, attempts to dive underneath.

It binds, builds up tension and morphs and then releases. And when it releases, it causes wave after wave of tsunami, tsunamis to come up on earth.

So here's what it would have looked like here. We have like the new seafloor coming over like a big conveyor belt.

It hits the landmass, builds up a bunch of tension that releases and sends out a tsunami in both directions, causing wave after wave after wave.

And this is exactly why we see the dinosaurs buried in layer after layer after layer because they were seeing tens and tens of these tsunamis coming up, bringing mud, sand and debris and covering them rapidly.

We know this happened because we can even use underground radar to see plates that have subducted like this called the

Farallon plate. You can go see this around the Farallon Islands. That's where it happened.

It hit California. The seafloor dove underneath it. We can even use a heat map to see how recent it is.

So these things are very, very obvious that they happened and it's obvious that it happened recently. They're still happening today.

About 90 % of the earthquakes are generated from subduction planes here where we have the ring of fire and these plates are still diving underneath and causing tsunamis like what we see that happened in Japan.

Here's just a static shot of this one tsunami that came in by Japan. The seafloor jumped and moved 79 feet during this subduction related event.

So the seafloor is still diving underneath the landmass. It unbound and skipped over 79 feet and that one event caused this tsunami and we can see how it radiated out here.

That one event with the Japan tsunami that just all happened in our lifetime created this.

All those waves, all that pressure change went over from one tsunami slip that was sufficient to kill all kinds of people but it was from a seafloor slip, a subduction related earthquake that happened that caused that tsunami to go all the way over killing lots of people.

This was happening wave after wave after wave in cycles during Noah's flood.

So what about ash? Why in the world are dinosaurs found buried in so much ash? What could produce so much ash?

Because we have dinosaurs that are buried under states and states worth of ash. So I've got a quick video here that should explain that.

Rapidly subducting plates resulted in enormous volcanism that spewed megatons of ash that entombed countless dinosaurs in multiple states.

The evidence for this is obvious. For example, the Independence Dike Swarm is a system of linear fissures that erupted during the flood.

This system extends over 370 miles in Southern California and belted out 4 ,000 cubic miles of ash that covered multiple states leaving behind enormous ash deposits like the

Brushy Basin Member which is 110 meters thick in Eastern Utah and found in 35 other locations around the region.

Okay, so was anyone around when the Mount St. Helens blew its top in the 1980s? Okay, so it pretty much covered three states for three days.

It was dark. You could hardly see the sun. That was one small eruption that looked like this.

Here's a picture of it. That's just Mount St. Helens. Now, if you look at this video, this or this graphic here, this is showing the volume of ash that was produced during the flood.

The Independence Dike Swarm that was a linear fissure system in Southern California produced 4 ,000 cubic miles of ash.

It was all blown eastward burying all the dinosaurs. Mount St. Helens is this tiny little blip one right here, one quarter of one square mile.

So that's why we have heaps and heaps and heaps of ash that's covering and burying all these dinosaurs.

So what about the asteroid theory? So we will just show that real quick because I know

I'm almost out of time here. So that's in Montana where they found the largest T -Rex.

That's where they say the asteroid landed that made the dinosaur extinction. But look at all these dead dinosaurs that are way, way, way far away.

So if we drop the rock and simulate the Chicxulub asteroid, how in the world did that asteroid that fell way down here bury these creatures under 100 feet of mud?

It completely misses. So the next time you're in a natural history museum, just know it is a completely failed explanation.

What really happened is we have the tsunamis that are bringing in water from the west to the east, moving in a system -wide process going from the west to the east, burying all these creatures in wave after wave of tsunamis.

So on dinosaur taphonomy, I'm going to go ahead and end up now because I want to make sure that we have time for our Q &A panel.

But I will say this thing. One, what really clinched it for me, and hopefully we have one of these in the

Q &A sessions, is dinosaur soft tissue. Right now as I stand here, there's 122 peer -reviewed scientific journals that are not from creationist publications that have established not five, not 10, but 16 different types of bio -organic materials that they're finding in dinosaur bones.

This is absolutely a case -closed evidence for Young Earth and for Noah's Flood.

So we have a lot of great questions here. We're going to go through them. And would you check that mic for me, thanks?

Check, check. All right. Okay, let's get to it. First question is, what is carbon dating?

And how does it fit into creationism? So radiocarbon dating is when they take carbon -14 and date it because it has a known half -life of about 5 ,700 years.

I'm actually on an international committee or panel of radiocarbon experts around the world.

And I get the privilege of talking with people who actually pull the handles on accelerator mass spectrometer machines.

These people own carbon dating. They know it really, really well. And all of them are

Young Earth creationists. So none of them are afraid of how carbon dating fits with our paradigm of a

Young Earth with Earth being about 6 ,000 years old. The problem with carbon dating is it works good for a couple thousand years.

And then after a couple thousand years, you have to really start leaning, handling on assumptions because there are eight different external factors that can change radiocarbon dating.

Things like Earth's magnetic pull to the moon, solar flares can change it. If you have a volcanic eruption, it changes carbon dating.

Even forest fires can change carbon dating in an entire region. So these assumptions go on and on and on and on.

Even when they were testing atom bombs in the 1950s, the amount of radiocarbon doubled in the atmosphere from 1950 to 1960.

So there's all kinds of assumptions that you have to believe are true and constant when you want to try to use carbon dating to go back 10 ,000 years or 20 ,000 years or 30 ,000 years.

But this panel that I'm on with people who understand this very, very well, they're operating the machines. None of us are afraid of the results.

And it just said you have to get and do a lot of assumptions the further and further back that you go. The problem with the wide variability of radiocarbon dates that people were getting became so bad that years ago, the

British Research Council did a blind experiment where they sent out radiocarbon dating artifacts to about over three dozen labs around the world.

The results came back incredibly. Only seven of the labs got it vaguely correct.

Every other lab of about three dozen missed radiocarbon dates by hundreds and hundreds of years.

These were artifacts of known ages. If you talk with archaeologists and people who use carbon dating a lot, the seasoned experts give it a thumbnail.

That's all they'll do is to say, yeah, it's about 3 ,000 years old, plus or minus, maybe 500 years, or plus or minus, maybe 600 years.

So it's a tool and it will work good for relative dating in most instances, but it's not a reliable, pinpointing, precise science.

Great. Thank you. If the Earth and universe, including stars and galaxies, are only 6 ,000 years old, how does one explain million or billion light years far away stars and galaxies?

You're an astrologist? I'm the astrologer of the group. This is my favorite question, because it is actually an issue that we do not have all of the answers for.

You see, if the universe is approximately 6 ,000 years old, and I have taken photos of supernovae, exploding stars in galaxies that are thousands, millions of light years away, shouldn't it have taken the light millions of years to reach the

Earth? And that is a great question. We have to remember that light years is actually a measurement of distance, not of time.

It's the distance that light would theoretically travel at 12 million miles a minute after an entire year.

But here's the thing that we have to remember, okay? When we talk about the distant starlight problem, which we freely admit, what we don't talk about is that the secular astronomer has a distant starlight time problem.

That's right, 14 billion years is not sufficient time for light to transmit from one side of the universe to the other.

And the secular astronomer is actually, it's called the horizon problem. And what they've done to try to patch this problem up is they call it inflation, which states that magically just a few nanoseconds after the

Big Bang 14 billion years ago, all matter in the universe began expanding rapidly, faster than the speed of light, and then magically slowed down to its current linear expansion rate at some point.

Now, they don't have a mechanism for what would cause it to go faster than the speed of light. They don't have a mechanism on what would cause it to stop expanding so quickly.

So if 14 billion years isn't enough time to get light from one side of the universe to the other,

I'll admit 6 ,000 years sounds pretty challenging, but I have a lot of good friends.

Dr. Russ Humphreys gravitational time dilation states that gravity affects time.

In other words, if we are anywhere near the center of this universe, we may be in a gravitational well where time travels at a different rate than it does farther out in the universe.

That's a potential way to solve this problem. I have another good friend by the name of Dr. Danny Faulkner. He has his PhD in astronomy.

And he says that, well, there's actually a passage in Genesis that talks about Dasha multiple times, a rapid maturing.

So could God not have created the universe and then rapidly matured it or stretched it out?

Potentially that might solve the starlight in time problem. And then another good friend, Dr. Jason Lyle, PhD in astrophysics from the

University of Boulder. He has another convention, not really a theory, but it's a convention that states that anisotropic light synchrony convention.

So big word, but basically it means we don't know what the one way speed of light is. Maybe we're actually seeing the distant parts of the universe in near real time.

And there is no way based on Einstein's theory of relativity to determine what the truth is on that.

Here's what I'm telling you. The secular astronomers have a distant starlight in time problem, which they have fixed with a supernatural magical component.

I don't think I really have that big of an issue. God knows how he did it and we'll find out one day.

Awesome, thank you. All right, what is the leading proof that dinosaurs lived recently?

Yeah, I think what I left up on the screen, I think for me, it would be dinosaur taphonomy.

If the dinosaurs were just buried in mud, that would be one thing, but they're buried in a composite of mud, sand, and ash.

And the theory of catastrophic plate tectonics, which is the leading flood theory, shows that they're buried in a matrix that the theory says that they should be buried in, because we have volcanism and tsunamis.

And those are the two mechanisms that are gonna bury those dinosaurs in stratified layers all together, and it's gonna have hit them so suddenly, we're gonna find them buried in herds and buried all mixed up.

And that's exactly what we find. 97 % of the dinosaur fossil record is disarticulated, meaning they got hit so fast with something that they didn't have time to deal with it.

They're all scrambled up, as we mentioned, with some of their femurs even split lengthwise. But for me, the clincher,

I think, even when I speak at colleges, I say, look, it's not me as a creationist that has the issue with dinosaurs or dinosaur evolution.

I turn the pages and say, actually, you guys, the evolutionists, have the biggest problem, because there's two things that are existing at the same time.

Their current science books, secular science books, say that collagen is a soft product that has a half -life and a known shelf life.

It should decay, all of it. Some scientists say 10 ,000 to 30 ,000 years. Some scientists say 100 ,000 years.

And some scientists will stretch it all the way up to 300 ,000 to 900 ,000 years, basically, if you put it in a pristine burial situation.

But in all situations, these dinosaurs, especially the ones in the Cretaceous, the topmost layers, they have collagen preserved in their bones.

And current secular science says, we only have mechanisms to say it should only last about 100 ,000 years.

So they currently have no answer why that product is still found in dinosaur bones. But to us, we have no problem whatsoever.

It doesn't surprise me that dinosaurs still have 16 fresh bio -organic materials in them, because they were recently buried about 4 ,500 years ago in a flood.

In fact, it's even still surprising to me after 4 ,500 years that we could still find soft pliable bio -organics in dinosaurs even after that long.

So I think for me, the clincher would be dinosaur soft tissues. And ICR happens to have, I think, the leading expert in the world on it,

Dr. Brian Thomas. His PhD is in paleo -biochemistry. Did I get that right? From Liverpool.

And Brian knows what he's talking about. And he's got heaps and heaps and heaps of evidence and all kinds of papers that he's done on it.

So for me, it really is a case closed issue. And most evolutionists that have studied this, admit that they're having to try to come up with rescuing devices to try to desperately save the idea that dinosaurs are 65 million years old, because the scientific data doesn't support it.

Thank you. Can you provide an example of CET and how it applies to humans, part one?

And can the cave fish who appear to lose their eyesight regain it, Dr. G? Well, I was wondering if I had just answered every one of your questions about adaptation, leaving you just thoroughly, thoroughly educated in all of that.

Two questions. CET in regards to humans. Yes, there are some great examples of it.

It's not the ones that you would normally think of. And these are actually based on some good observational data.

And both of them relate on how organisms and how humans interact with each other. And how humans basically adapt to specific conditions.

And both of them relate to the challenge of starvation. And the first observations went all the way back to the 1940s, right at the end of World War II, the

Germans had invaded Holland and they were restricting the food that the people there were getting. And these people were starving.

But women were still getting pregnant during that time. How do humans respond when they are in starvation conditions?

That was an interesting finding. They found out, and they didn't know the exact underlying mechanism on it, and I think we have a better understanding of it now, that the children that were born during that time actually had a propensity to be what they called calorie hoarders.

In other words, their mom was in a starvation condition, she was being starved, children were born, and they had this tendency to hoard their calories.

And what tipped them off was, and this was not only in Holland, but somewhat even in the United States during the 1950s, even though women were not starving, they had a limited diet compared to this.

So you had the children in Holland and you had people, children in America, who were born with mothers with more of a restricted diet that tended to be calorie hoarders.

But they grew up in a society where they were actually calorie abundant.

So they grew up in a society which was mismatched from what their parents were in.

And because they tended to be calorie hoarders and you were in a calorie abundant environment, a calorie hoarder means is you don't generally burn them and expend them as quickly as you normally would.

They ended up having issues with obesity and diabetes. And then the same experiment was done even, it wasn't really an experiment, it was done, the research was done in China.

When I was a child in the early 1960s, my mom would say to me, eat everything on your plate because there's what?

Starving children in China. See, everybody's mom must have been telling them that. Eat what's on your plate because there's starving children in China.

Well, there were starving children in China, but there were starving everybody in China. And one of their five -year plans started about 1959, from 1959 to 1963, 64, over 40 million people in China starved to death.

That's a lot. But they were able to track the offspring of children who lived in cities where their parents were being starved and they were able to track them.

This was a cool study. If mom was being starved but dad wasn't, if dad was being starved but mom wasn't, if mom and dad were being starved, and then people who had moved to that same city from another city where neither one of them were being starved.

Isn't that kind of a cool way of doing it? And then they tracked their offspring. And they found that the offspring of children whose parents were being starved because they had the same tendency to be calorie hoarders had a much higher tendency to develop type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia and heart disease.

And not only that, it was proportional to which parent was starved. Higher if dad was starved, higher yet if mom was starved, and highest yet if both mom and dad were starved.

How does that happen? That happens because as mom is making eggs and dad is making sperm, markers are put on those cells.

They're epigenetic markers. They're little chemical tags. And they regulate genes being turned on and off during development during that time.

It's not even a change in the genome. It's changes in the regulations of those genes.

And the changes in the regulations of those genes, and if we do another talk in a year or so,

I'll show you some more examples, can affect how you develop for the rest of your life.

That's an interesting one of just humans having ability to track. In terms of the cave fish and their eyes, the answer is we don't know yet if the eyes will come back.

And that is one of our next area of experimentation. I do know that the cave fish, the surface fish, which had eyes when they found their ways in the cave, did not lose their eyes over 8 million years.

And that 8 million years was then reduced to 2 million years, and then it reduced in the literature to 100 ,000 years.

That was reduced to 20 ,000 years. And a recent paper came out where it said it could be anywhere from near time to 2 ,000 years.

So I know they did not lose their eyes over a long period of time, and I know experimentally they can lose their eyes within one generation.

The question is, can they get their eyes back? And I don't know yet, because it's highly complicated as to what the fish are actually sensing and tracking.

You think it's only light, light and dark. It isn't. I can tell you that. It is not just light and dark.

Cave conditions are very different than freshwater conditions. They differ in terms of the amount of dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, which can also be two independent variables, pH, water conductivity, organic materials, and on and on and on.

So which one of these conditions or which combinations of conditions are the fish detecting?

We don't know yet. We don't know. But we're doing experiments on those.

I can tell you that offspring of fish who were blind fish that were raised in the light, those ones that I showed you, they regained their pigmentation on their first spawn rather than their eyes regressing within the first 24 hours, which happens.

And so, in other words, babies start to develop eyes. The eyes start to develop normally, and then a switch comes on, and within 24 hours, those eyes start to regress.

On the first generation of fish that were raised in the light, their eyes did not regress for about five days.

So it was a big difference. So something is happening. What combinations of the conditions?

We don't know yet, but that's an active area of experimentation. Thank you. How do you propose explaining the fossil record of humanoid, quote unquote, humanoid -like skeletons progressively looking more human throughout time?

Here. OK. So the evolutionary story about ape -like creatures turning into humans is a very, very weak one for those of us who have studied it from an evidential standpoint.

The first thing to consider is this. If you were to take all of the supposed fossils that show an ape -like creature progression all the way to humans, you could fit them into a bathtub.

That's literally what these experts are saying. Some people say in the back of a pickup truck. Other experts say into a bathtub.

So we start from Ardipithecus, then we go to Lucy or the Australopithecines, then we have

Homo habilis, and then we have Homo erectus, and then it goes on, on up the way. And they have a very, very fragmented, a bush -like assembly of supposed human evolution.

It's not a linear thing. They just have a collection of different fossils. But if you take the leading icon,

Lucy, and just go to our website and type in Lucy or genesisapologetics .com slash

Lucy, we have video after video on Lucy. And even now, leading evolutionists are dropping

Lucy out of the human evolution tree because the evidence just does not stand up. They only have 20 -some percent of her fossil.

They found that her thoracic vertebrae didn't even belong to her anymore. It belonged to an extinct baboon, not even part of the ape line.

So we have a very scattered assemblance of supposed evidence. And when you pick one icon at a time,

Artie or Lucy or all these other ones are Homo habilis, and really drill into them, it's really, really a weak argument.

So we have, if you go to genesisimpact .com, we take each one of these icons and address them one at a time.

And you'll find for yourself, it's a very, very weak assemblance of evidence. Thank you. All right, we got time for maybe one or two more.

Dr. Galuzzo, if species can adapt, why is there extinctions? Okay, if species can adapt, why are there extinctions?

Extinction is something that is really troubling for everybody to explain. So from the evolutionary theory point of view, adaptation and extinction should go hand in hand.

Most evolutionists don't talk about that, but in reality, it should be because according to Darwin's theory, as organisms adapt and as they become fitter, according to his theory, it's due to a struggle to survive, and it's due to a struggle for scarce resources.

Therefore, in order to get his upward trajectory, one group of creatures has to replace another group of creatures, which would drive them to extinction.

The problem with, and that kind of would make sense from what he's talking about, the problem is nobody has ever seen one group of creatures drive another group of creatures to extinction, and nobody has ever seen a struggle to survive or fitness drive one group of creatures to extinction as well.

So from an engineering perspective, why would creatures go extinct? Well, as I mentioned that organisms could adapt, but I never indicated that organisms could adapt unlimitedly, that there would be limits to their adaptive capabilities in this particular case.

That makes sense because even engineers, when we design something to be adaptable, it's usually done within specific design parameters.

It can adapt between this range and this range. And when it is exposed to conditions, even our adaptable human things, where it's outside those range, they will break, they will break down.

And that's the same thing with creatures. There was no death before the fall, but creatures were not created to be invulnerable.

Does that make sense? So theoretically, if you exposed Adam's arm bone to forces beyond what it was designed for, it would have broken.

And if you would have pushed Adam off a cliff, he would have died, he would have broken. That's what would have happened to him.

So somehow, some way, the Lord kept this death before the fall from occurring on those things.

Post -fall, it's a different story. As I mentioned, post -fall, the consequences of the inability to adapt became more severe.

You could either stay where you are, or if the conditions were too much, you could die. So when organisms are placed into conditions where it can destroy a huge number of their population, if they're not widely diverse, once a population takes a hit of a large number of their numbers, it is very hard at times for that population to recover, and they will go extinct.

So the ability to adapt doesn't give you invulnerable capabilities to adapt to anything, nor does it give you the ability to adapt indefinitely and become something different.

You will be able to adapt within your specific design parameters. Most people don't like to hear this, but the number one reason why most creatures go extinct is due to one creature on the planet, and that creature is who?

Us. It's we. We destroy habitat. We destroy large numbers.

We kill them off. We do those things. And you're not an animal rights activist, tree -hugging leftist liberal from California if you are concerned about loss of habitat and destruction of these things.

What you would be is a good Bible -believing Christian who wants to exercise stewardship of this planet in a wise way.

That's what you would be. Amen. All right.

Well, it's 4 .02. I want to thank Dr. Dan Biddle. Thank you, Dr. Galuza, David Reeves.

You guys, I can't imagine the size of your libraries. I hope you guys have enjoyed this.

I want to invite you back next year. We hope to have it even bigger, and I want to close this in prayer.

Would you guys pray with me, please? Father God, we praise you, Lord, for you are the creator.

Lord, all things have been made through you and for your glory. All the earth is full of your glory.

Lord, so we thank you that you have given us this knowledge today. You have illuminated our minds with so many things.

Would you have us meditate on these things throughout the day? And if there's any person here who's been convicted today by you,

Holy Spirit, would they repent and believe in the name of Jesus Christ and be saved and be brought into your kingdom and enjoy you forever?

Lord, you are the joy of our lives. We ask that joy to go forth, to pour out to our families tonight and into the churches tomorrow.