All language subtitles for Genesis.Paradise.Lost.2017.1080p.BluRay.H264.AAC-RARBG

3,200 years ago... after the worldwiae flood of Noah's
time, but long before the birth of Jesus Christ

God inspired loses to record
history - from the beginning.

These writings became the first five
books of the holy Bible's old testament.

Beginning with Genesis, the first book...

Our history... from Adam, the first man, to
Abraham, with whom god established his covenant

all leading to god's ultimate plan of redemption: A
future new covenant, a new testament, someday to come.

Genesis is the book of our origins, and our destiny. It's a destiny
we cannot fully understand until we go back... to the beginning.

Genesis: Paradise lost - english
sub-titles - www.genesismovie.com

they hijack science; They want to convince the whole world
that science is only possible within an atheistic worldview.

I have to ask the question: How can you not
believe that someboay designed all of this?

Obviously, the genius of god's creative hand screams
for the powerful existence of an intelligent designer.

Genesis

Part 1... "Paradise I ost”

The Bible begins with a statement that is so simple
a child can understand it, yet so very deep:

“In the beginning, god created
the heaven and the earth.”

You see, this argument over god's existence, Ana of creation
versus evolution, is not so much a religious argument.

Rather, it is an ontological argument, that is, I's
an argument concerning the very nature of reality.

It's not between science versus religion.
No, it's a worldview clash.

Two different views of origins resulting in
two totally different worldviews that clash.

People are battling over two different histories.
You either trust god, or you trust man.

It really becomes an issue of authority.
Vwho is the authority?

Is it god in his word, the holy Bible,
or instead is it man and man's opinions?

Really, we only have two possibilities.

Either the universe, and all of us, came about
through a purely natural, physical process;

in other words, we just "happened” - or
somebody made us.

I was taught in school that there was a "big bang, that
there were millions of years, and man slowly evolved.

'Ihe theory of evolution, atheistic evolution,
the big bang, and millions of years.

If we simply happened then there
really is no right or wrong.

We could just live our lives the way we
wish to, that has huge consequences.

Evolution has a lot of unintended consequences
that I'm not sure everyone has thought about.

Evolutions beliefs relate to ethics. Hey relate to
whether or not the world is supposed to be good.

When you find yourself struggling
with evil, you ought to ask yourself:

Well, I thought the world was supposed to be this
way? If evolution is true, then get used to it

you see if evolution is true; Who am I?
Youre nothing important.

You're just a plece of protoplasm that
washed up from the cosmic shores.

If evolution is true, man is just an animal.
We're mother nature's science project.

Why am I here? If evolution is true, if nature
is all there is, there's no real purpose.

Might as well do whatever you feel like.
If it feels good, do it!

You have no meaning. I here is
no reason for you to exist.

Vwhere am I going when I die? Youre going to go
back into the ground and that is going to be it.

The lights are turned out on you. You die and
become part of nothingness... youre worthless

but instead if there is a god, and in particular the god of the
Bible, then the worlq, all of reality, is altogether different!

I used to think that to believe the
Bible meant you had to reject science.

I thought I had to have a "mental lobotomy"
in order to start believing the Bible.

We hear the mantra: "All the
scientists believe in evolution

some people today want to insist that you can't
do science without believing in evolution

in other words if you are a creationist
you cannot also be a scientist.

But there are thousands of phd scientists all
over the world who don't accept evolution

and many of them don't accept the
belief in millions of years.

I have four advanced educational degrees. Most
evolutionist professors I've met have only three.

There is a small movement in the evolutionist community to ry to get
the aoctoral degrees taken away from all professing creationists.

That's never going to happen but the fact that
someone is trying speaks to the nature of the debate

the secularists and the atheists took
control of science and its beliefs.

They took control of all the science journals
and all the university science programs.

They have taken over the museums. [Hey have taken over
the state schools. [Hey have taken over the universities

also the main textbooks and the
public schools in almost every country.

'I'he secularists really have control
of the educational system and they want

thelr religion of secularism, of atheism,
and of naturalism forced upon the students.

'They use political pressure. Hey use scare
tactics. [Hey use the courts as well.

They will intimidate school districts and take away their
autonomy that is given to them by the us constitution.

And if that's what they have to do, if you need laws to protect a
theory from criticism, what does that tell you about the theory?

In America, there is no real separation of church and state
because the state is forcing a religion on generations of kids,

and that is that everything can be explained by
natural processes only, I.E. Atheistic evolution

they eliminate the supernatural. Lheir theory
is a religion. Itis a religion of atheism.

They hijack science, and they convince the whole world that
science is only possible within an atheistic worldview

even though modern science was born from
the womb of the Christian worldview.

Did you know that modern science was pretty much
invented by people of faith, by christians?

Think of sir Isaac Newton. I think he
needs a better public relations agent:

All most folks know is that he had an apple fall
on his head and that he discovered gravity.

He was doing mathematical formulas to show that the idea of math and
reason came directly from a logical creator who invented the world.

Isaac Newton, boyle, pasteur, Faraday: Lhese
scientists were all Bible-believing christians

Johannes kepler, who pretty much invented modern astronomy,
he didn't see any problem between science and the scriptures.

Most of the early scientists
were not materialists.

Most of the early scientists were theists who believed
that there was a god who had created everything.

And the reason that we could understand the created world was that there
was a mind, an incredible intelligence, behind the material world.

Ve need to acknowledge that there is a creator god who put in
place an orderly universe to allow us to understand science

vyvhich makes more sense: A rational god who created
a rational world that can be studied rationally;

or - an irrational, meaningless process that somehow
created a rational world that can be studied rationally?

It doesn't even make sense. In a secularized
world where there is no right and wrong,

everything just exploded, they
believe, and this is what we have?

Why would we have all these beautiful
laws like f = ma or e = mc2?

In a secular worldview with things like the
big bang, evolution, the millions of years,

and a naturalistic origin of
life; Those are not scientific.

A lot of people have been duped into
believing that they are, but they're not.

For example, is the big bang
observable and repeatable”? No.

Is millions of years observable
and repeatable”? No.

“Origin of life” has anybody ever
made life from non-life'? No.

Evolution is not a scientific fact. He "millions
of years” is also not a scientific fact.

Evolution and its millions of years - is the
greatest myth ever forced onto the minds of men

the reason that most people believe it today
is because they have been brainwashed

are we going to believe man's theories, when man wasn't there during
the supposed millions and millions of years of earth's history?

And who really just has to make up
stories about what happened in the past?

Vwhen you start to buy into evolution, its
millions of years, and some of those ideas,

you've then opened the door to say, you
don't have to trust the Bible completely.”

If you can't trust the truth of Genesis 1-12, then why
should you believe: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Thats a logical incoherence, because now youre
picking and choosing which scriptures to believe.

Hypocrisy in the church is the greatest deterrent to turning people to
Christ, and to confidence in the written word, from Genesis to revelation.

Genesis is so important because it's the foundation of
who god is, and who we are, and why is the world broken?

Vwhy do bad things happen to good people? And why
do good things sometimes happen to bad people?

And does anyone have a fix? All this gets related to us in Genesis.
Genesis gives us the true beginning of history of the world.

'Ihe scientific evidence does not support
evolution and millions of years.

Rather it confirms what Genesis says about a great
flood of Noah, and about the age of the earth.

God's word is true from
the very first verse.

And in this debate between creation versus evolution, christians
need to always be standing on the truth of god's word.

Stand firm on the authority of the word of
god, starting with the very first verse.

"In the beginning god
created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void;
And darkness was upon the face of the deep.

And the spirit of god moved
upon the face of the waters.

And god sald, let there be
light: And there was light.

And god saw the light, that it was good: And
god divided the light from the darkness.

And god called the light, day, and
the darkness he called, night.

And the evening and the
morning were the first day.

And god said, let there be a firmament
in the midst of the waters.

And let it divide the
waters from the waters

and god made the firmament, and divided
the waters which were under the firmament

from the waters which were above
the firmament, and it was so.

And god called the firmament, heaven. And the
evening and the morning were the second day.

And god said, let the waters unaer the
heaven be gathered together unto one place.

And let the dry land appear.

And it was so.

And god called the dry land, earth.

And the gathering together of
the waters he called, seas.

And god saw that it was good.

And god sald, let the earth bring
forth grass, the herb yielding seed.

And the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth.

And it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and
herb yielding seed after his kind.

And the tree yielding fruit, whose
seed was in itself, after his kind.

And god saw that it was good.

And the evening and the
morning were the third day.”

Vwhen we read the first chapter
of Genesis, we have to ask:

What Kina of text is this? What
type of literature is this”?

Is Genesis supposed to be poetry?
Is it supposed to be an allegory?

Don't forget that Genesis is written in historical
narrative Hebrew, not in lyrical poetic form

it is written in historical style, and it's meant
to be taken... as straightforward, literal history.

The Bible clearly says that god created everything in six
literal days, just like our days, about 6,000 years ago.

Jesus Christ himself referred to Genesis on multiple
occasions, each time referring to Genesis as real history.

There are some people who approach the biblical text today and they
view it through the lens of modern scientific interpretations.

For example, they try to insert millions of years
in between the first two verses of scripture.

Now in order to aad millions of years in between verse 1 and
verse 2, you have [o deal with the grammar of the text.

'Ihe Hebrew is very clear
in the syntax and grammar.

Now, there are people who
say they don't believe it.

But no one can say that the Hebrew word "yom" doesn't
mean a 24-hour day right there where it says a day.

And then it says first day, second day; And
at the end, the fifth day and the sixth day.

Each of those days was an ordinary,
approximately 24-hour day.

In fact, that is why in exodus 20:11, goad said ne made everything
in six days and rested for one, as a basis for the seven-day week.

You see the seven day week actually comes from the
Bible. It doesn't come from any other worldview.

Vwe have this seven-day cycle that we call the
week, and there is no astronomical basis for this

it's something that is fairly universal among cultures, but we
find it's given to us in the first few chapters of Genesis.

You have the six days of creation. And
then on the seventh day, god rested.

God made everything in six days.
He rested for one.

That is why we have a seven-day
week; That's where it comes from.

We don't have any "seven millions-of-years”
weeks, or something like that!

There is no way to harmonize evolution and its
"millions of years” with the "days" in Genesis 1

if you try to make that order of the events of the creation
vweek match with evolutionary principles, it can't.

If the days were really millions or billions of years,
how could the plants go for a million years with no sun?

They might have lasted overnight, like the
Bible says, but not for a million years!

'I'he plants could survive just fine
for twelve hours without sunlight.

If Genesis 1 was just written by Moses out of his own imagination,
he would never think to put things in the order that they are in.

It is completely contradictory to the order in
which the evolutionists say things happened.

They are in that order because that's the
oraer in which god actually created,

knowing that people would come along
and devise thelr own creation myths,

and that one day there would be evolutionists
with thelr atheistic creation myth.

In 1899, Charles Darwin published his
book, "on the origin of species.”

It was a book that proposed a new theory
on how life came to be on planet earth.

This theory would strongly contradict the Bible, which had been the
predominant, trusted source of ancient history in the west up until that time.

Darwin was strongly influenced by Charles lyell's
1893 book, "I he principles of geology."

Lyell, also influenced by others, reinterpreted
geologic history through gradual processes

over millions of years - a concept
known as: Uniformitarianism.

This view was contrary to catastrophism, which teaches that Noah's
flood can explain much of what we find in the geologic record.

Lyell's motivation was to “free
the science from vloses'...

Their ideas would soon transform the culture from one
that largely trusted in the biblical account of history;

and its implications for
cosmology, geology, and biology,

to one that searched for alternative
explanations for everything.

Did man evolve from animals? Did the
universe form itself over billions of years?

Did dinosaurs go extinct millions of
years before man was on the earth”?

Was there really a worlawide flood”?

These questions would soon lead many to either make compromises
with the Bible, or even to deny the holy Bible altogether.

I've had people say, well where did
god come from”? Vvvho created god?"

On what page of Shakespeare's work:
"Hamilet” do you find Shakespeare?

Shakespeare is not confined to his book. He's
not present within if; He wrote the book

he's not bound by his book. And
god is not bound by his creation.

Wwhen you ask that question, "vwhere dia
god come from?" Or "vwho created god?"

You are assuming that time 1s absolute
and god showed up on that timeline.

That is not the god of the Bible. The
god of the Bible is beyond all that.

God started time. He wasn't created. He is
not bound by time. God is that absolute!

Everyone knows, in the beginning god
created the heaven and the earth.”

Heaven is space. [He earth is matter.
And then he sald, "let there be light.”

That's energy.

On the first day of the universe, god created: Space, time,
matter, and energy - all the components of the universe.

And the only actual matter in the universe is the
earth at the time, standing in and out of the water

perhaps it was water that the earth was made from, and
water was actually the first substance that god made

and so, we have matter, space, ime, and energy
being created on the first aay of the universe

the second day is when god actually separates the waters
above from the waters below, and then the expanse is there.

'I'he third day, god then brings forth the
dry land. He raises up the land surface.

So now you have the first continent, probably only one
continent because it says he gathered the waters together.

All to one place, which suggests that in
the early earth there was one land mass.

Just one continent later split up, we believe,
during the great flood of Noah many years later.

It wasn't until the 1960s that geologists
began to widely accept "continental drift.”

This was a supposedly new idea that the continents of the earth
had broken up at sometime in the past and had slowly moved apart.

You've probably heard the
name "rodinia” or" pangaea.

A super-continent on earth, in which all the continents
as we know them were once connected together.

This is a concept that the Bible already
revealed thousands of years earlier.

In 18398, Antonio snider-pellegrini proposed that the continents had
moved apart rapidly during Noah's flood, in a catastrophic process.

Genesis 1:9 states that god gathered together the waters
into one place, and he made the dry land to appear.

Vwhat the Bible had stated all along - that the lands were once connected and
then split apart - geologists started teaching thousands of years later.

Many people's understanding of the flood is the understanding
they acquired when they were about four years old.

The flood was an incredible catastrophe almost
beyond what the human mind can comprehend.

'This is a catastrophic event
of unimaginable proportions.

Sedimentation on a global cataclysmic-catastrophic scale, burying
billions of creatures suddenly, all in unimaginable amounts of sediment.

Look at all the fossils. It's almost like the surface of the
earth screams at us, "hey! There was a catastrophic event!"

If something like that happened, what sort
of evidence should have been left behind?

Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers
laid down by water, all over the earth!

Most of the fossil record is a result of the
flood, not millions of years of slow processes.

'I'he fossil record documents the
reality of the Genesis flood.

It was also a tectonic catastrophe: Large-scale plate
motion, migration of the continents by thousands of miles.

Vwwhich means that all of the Atlantic ocean opened up during the flood;
And the Indian ocean opened up also, the transforming the earth's surface.

It is impossible to walk away from the biblical text thinking
that this was some type of local mesopotamian flood.

This was a flood of universal proportions in its destruction
of the earth itself; Its the destruction of all mankind.

The Bible tells us of a worldwide flood

one that radically changed the climate and devastated the continents,
thousands of years before scientists would even propose ice ages.

The irony is that these same scientists would
confirm the possibility of great global floods

on planets like Mars, and yet still deny
that a global flood was possible on earth.

You see, the Bible already stated there was a worldwide
flood, but they don't want to validate the Bible

they will come up with any other
explanation except the truth.

For 150 days, the waters covered the
mountains. [Hey prevailed over the earth.

Rive months of torrential downpour rain, of the fountains of the great
deep being broken open, and gushing out water from beneath as well.

The Hebrew words for the great deep, this immediately takes the
reader back to Genesis 1:2, where we have a water-covered earth.

Then on the thira day, god also makes the plants and the trees
of the field with the fruit in them, with seeds already in them.

Some people object to that and say, "but wait a minute: The
plants were made on day 3, but the sun wasn't made until day 4.

How can you have plants
without light from the sun?”

But you have light starting on day
1: God said, "let there be light.”

We are not told where the light came from.
Presumably, he had a source for light.

Light then exists independent of its
source anyway, if you think about it.

And the sun was made on day 4 to be the
light-bearer from that time onwards.

I's interesting: In the old testament, god warns the
israelites not to worship the sun like the pagans do.

And I believe one of the reasons that god left the sun until day 4, was
to show that he created the light and that he sustains all of that.

The sun is just ris tool, so don't worship
the sun. Vworship god, who made the sun

And god said...

Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night.

And let them be for signs,

Anda for seasons

And for days...

And for years.

And let them be for lights in the firmament
of the heaven, to give light upon the earth

And it was so.

And god made two great lights;

The greater light to rule the aay,

And the lesser light to rule the nignt.

He made the stars also.

And god set them in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth.

And to rule over the day and over the night,
and to divide the light from the darkness.

And god saw that it was good.

And the evening and the
morning were the fourth day.”

Astronomers typically
specialize in different fields.

Some will study planets, some will study
galaxies; I happen to study stars.

Physicists and astronomers have started asking questions.
[Hey say, why does the universe appear to be designed?"

I read this book many years ago called "I he anthropic
principle.” it's a huge book of over a thousand pages.

'I'he authors draw this interesting story
that the world appears to be designed.

When I got done, they said that it just appears
to be designed; There really is no design there.

I'm thinking, you look at the evidence and
then you deny that the evidence is there?!

How can you not believe that
somebody designed all of this?

'I'he secular world says that the big
bang occurred 14 billion years ago.

Everything was compacted into one spot.

It expanaed, then the stars formed themselves, and then our
sun formed, and in the dust around the sun, the earth formed.

It was a hot molten blob, it got covered by
water, and then biological evolution happened.

But if that's the case, you
have any number of problems.

According to evolutionary theory, or at least atheistic
evolution theory, the big bang created everything.

Gas clouds went out everywhere, Ana stars
contracted from gas clouas out of their gravity.

But it's impossible for stars to contract out of their gravity because
as soon as you get a gas cloud that is compressed, it will heat up.

And hot gases want to expand, and that expansion force
is 100x or more powerful than the force of gravity!

So it could never happen.

There are all these "the dog ate my homework" stories
about how gravity waves came from black holes

they might do a push-pull thing on gas
clouds and make this actually happen.

But you have a "chicken and the egg” problem
here, because don't black holes come from stars?

So there have to be stars in the first place! [Here are
many, many questions in science that have not been answered

but there are also many questions
that have been answered.

So far, it is the problem for the evolutionist
of the questions that have been answered

like the coalescence of the stars, like
violating the first law of [hermodynamics.

Matter and energy cannot be
either created or destroyed.

However the big bang insists that
had to have happened at least once.

Many people think the universe popped into existence
instantly in a big bang, and that it happened all by itself!

Somehow matter had spontaneously come
into existence, without a prior cause.

'They have some serious problems
with the laws of nature.

I was speaking to the vice president of a group
called: The Darwin coalition, once and I said,

“you all believe in
spontaneous generation!”

He said, "vwve do not!” I said, "yes you do. You
believe it happened at least once, don't you?"

Why would any smart person be so easily
fooled by such a dumb suggestion?

I'hat actually his theory does violate the
known discoveries and laws of science.

Ve have two very important concepts in physics
called the: First Ana second laws of thermodynamics.

The first law says that energy is neither created nor
destroyed. And equally as valid as the first law is

the second law of hermodynamics, which says that things are
currently running down; And energy is becoming less useful.

The useful amount of energy is always decreasing,
and we measure this with a thing called entropy.

The entropy is always increasing. It's almost as if the
world was wound-up like a clock, and it's been unwinding.

The second law would seem to argue that... the universe has not
always existed - the material universe has not always existed.

But the first law says you could not have a
beginning. So, we have this contradiction.

We have this tension: Both
laws are equally true.

And vet both laws, if extrapolated
into the past, contradict each other.

'I'he universe has no natural explanation;
It doesn't have a physical explanation.

'I'he other thing they ve done
in our educational system:

They sald that science can only
explain things by natural processes.

'They have even changed the
definition of science from:

“T'he study of the natural world using the five senses” to
be instead: "The search for only natural explanations."

But who decided that? [Hat's
an arbitrary definition.

I hat specifically excludes any
possibility of god being involved.

God has not only been "kicked out”
but re is treated as most unwelcome.

'I'hey have totally changed
the methodology of science.

Vwe need to bring the worlds of science and the Bible
together for people so they can see that they mesh fine.

It is the unbelievers who have
the scientific problems, not us.

From a secular perspective, they can only
get light about halfway across the universe

that's why they have astronomical inflation theories and
super-inflation theories and so on - because they have a problem.

'They have a light time-travel problem.

'I'he problem is actually worse
that we sometimes think.

Alpha centauri is more than four light years away. God had to
get that light here not in four years, but by the end of day 4.

We used to call that
"the starlight problem.”

The nearest galaxy to us is 1.9 - 2 million light years away, so
woulant it take at least 1.5 million years for that light to get here?

And yes, in straight space, it would. But even the big bang
theorists will say that space and dimensions "unfolded."

Some people take mentions in the old testament of god
“stretching out the heavens" like a tent or a canopy

as him stretching that light
miraculously to get here.

Bible verses: "He stretches out the heavens
as a tent upon a pole to dwell in,”

"he stretches out the heavens as a curtain', "he that
arched the heavens”, "he that bowed the heavens",

"he stretched out the heavens
across the north place'...

All these Bible verses and many more indicate
that the way that goa did it was stretching.

The telescope has been around
for hundreds of years.

It has played an instrumental role in many of
our greatest discoveries about the universe

telescopes much larger and more advanced than these were used in
the early 1900s to measure what became known as the red shift,

a form of measurement which provided empirical
evidence that space was stretching.

This meant that space-time itself could
actually be manipulated as if it were fabric.

This understanding would begin to bring answers
to some of the biggest mysteries of the universe

but this concept was just a recognition
of what the Bible has already revealed.

In the books of both Isaiah and job, god said
he stretched out the heavens like a curtain,

and that he created the heavens
and stretched them out.

'These Bible verses gave us further
insight to the dimensionality of space

and showed us that the universe has been
stretched since the beginning of creation.

The implications of this biblical concept
have been better understood in modern times

vwhat's equally extraordinary is that the Bible also revealed that the
earth is round and that it floats in space, hanging upon nothing:

Amazing scientific insights from the Bible, proclaimed at a ime
when some ancient cultures believed that the earth was flat

'i'he Bible has always been - and shall
ever be - validated by real science.

Edwin rubble is credited with what many people think is perhaps
the greatest discovery of astronomy in the twentieth century.

It's the idea of what we call
the expansion of the universe.

And if it's expanding, then you would expect more distant
objects to appear to be moving farther away from us.

As the universe gets larger, there should be a relationship
between distance and that apparent motion between us.

And we measure that
motion by the red shifts.

Now according to Alpert Einstein, if you
actually stretch the fabric of space,

you will also essentially and necessarily
have to stretch the fabric of time.

So, Andromeda is not just 1.9 - 2 million light
years in spatial displacement over that way.

It is also time-stretched. Vve are looking at the
galaxy of Andromeda as it looked at a previous time.

But we are also looking at a galaxy that has experienced more time than
we have if we are anywhere closer to the center of the stretching.

Willlam tift, back about forty years ago, discovered
something interesting in the red shifts of galaxies.

The universe consists of concentric “shells” of
galaxies, and we are near the center of that

if we are placed there by god for some
reason, that's what you might expect.

Astronomers have more or less ignored lifft's work
over the years and yet it's staring them in the face

in astronomy, as in any other sciences, I think there are
evidences that the world is far younger than many people think.

Spiral galaxies would be a good example. [Hey actually spin
more rapidly at the center, and more slowly out at the edges.

Obviously if this thing spins around several
times it starts "smearing out” the spiral arms.

And as that happens you would spin it out to the point
where you would end up with just a blurry disk.

They think these galaxies are at least ten billion years
old, so these things would be entirely smeared out.

But in six thousand years there would
not be much smearing taking place.

In billions of years, it's a problem;
In thousands of years, not a problem.

Comets really do have something to say
about the age of the solar system.

Ve can divide comets into two groups: Short
period comets, Ana long period comets

for short period comets, in only a couple hundred thousand
years and they are all gone: There should not be any left.

For long period comets, tens of millions or maybe a
hundred million years but they are also all gone.

So for a billions-of-years old solar system, you have
a problem; But for thousands of years, not a problem.

Ve understand that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion
and that could power the sun for billions of years.

As it produces energy like that, it changes its composition
inside, and over time it should slowly brighten.

And as it does, the earth would get warmer. Now
again, over thousands of years this is not a problem.

But if go back a couple billion to three billion years
ago when life supposedly first developed on the planet,

you have a problem because the
earth would have been far colder.

It would have been frozen, and
nobody thinks that happened.

So in billions of years, it's a problem;
But in thousands of years, not a problem.

In fact, other planets in our solar system
testify to a young universe as well.

Both the density and magnetic field of
Mercury cannot allow for millions of years.

In 1984, creationist Dr. Russell Humphreys correctly
calculated the magnetic fields of uranus and Neptune.

I hat was several years before the voyager
2 satellite would actually measure them.

Humphreys used a vital clue from the Bible: That
the universe was made only 6,000 years ago.

And when the surface of Venus was mapped in the
mid-nineties, volcanos, craters, mountains,

and other features showed the
history of the planet as young.

Neptune is too hot to be old. Pluto
still has nitrogen in its atmosphere.

The rings of saturn Ana Neptune aren't uniform,
as they woulda be after millions of years.

So, do we trust in the timeline of men, who are
repeatedly wrong and having to change their beliefs?

Or do we trust in the Bible, which has never
been proven wrong and does not change.

And god said...

Let the waters bring forth abundantly,
the moving creature that has life.

And birds that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.

And god created great whales...

And every living creature that moves,

which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind.

And every winged bird after his kind.

And god saw that it was good.

And god blessed them, saying,
be fruitful, and multiply.

And fill the waters in the seas

And let birds multiply in the earth.

And the evening and the
morning were the fifth day.

A lot of people will say, "it just seems so hard to believe
the Bible because of all those miracles and everything."

Well, the big bang is a believed miracle. Lhe
evolution of life would have to be a miracle

and the changing of that life into all "the origin of the
species” all require violations of the laws of science

to believe that there is no god, you will have to
believe in miracles, but without a miracle maker!

'Io believe that evolution is true, you
will have to violate some of the main,

and most important principles and laws
of science that have been agreed upon.

Not only does the atheistic evolutionary worlaview
violate the first law of thermodynamics

but Louis pasteur proved that
"spontaneous generation” wasn't true.

But all evolutionists - every atheistic evolutionist -
actually believes in the spontaneous generation of life!

'I'his whole evolutionary concept
that life came from non-life.

It actually violates a law of science.
Its one of the only laws in biology.

I's called the law of biogenesis, Ana it states
that lite only comes from life, not from non-life

ihe law of biogenesis therefore says that
all life comes from pre-existing life.

And yet evolution says that life can come from
non-life. Surprise! If you just wait long enough.

But we see no examples of that today. Vve cant observe
if; We cant repeat if; People just believe it blindly.

Anytime they have done these sorts
of "origin of life” experiments,

where they're trying to take a soup, so to speak, of all
these different molecules, add a little bit of lightning...

Cook everything together, add
a spark, and out comes... 7

jar. They end up with gunk. Hey have to
do a lot of tweaking to end up with...

Amino acids. Is that impressive? Ooohn.

It's not even meaningful information
as far as real DNA is concerned.

Every evolutionary story starts with the famous
"Miller-urey experiments” from the 1950s

the best yields that they ve ever gotten
were 80% I-amino acids and 20% d-amino acids

that means that every fifth amino acid in a protein series
would be lethal to all forms of life on our planet!

'I'he evolutionists try to get away from
this molecular problem of mirror images.

I'he odds for 250 chemical parts
coming together is 2 x 1004/6.

Thatis a2 with 4/6 zeros following after it!
2.000,000,000,000,000,000.000.000.000.000,000.000...

'Those are the terrible odds for the first cell
to even come into existence - all by itself!

The best they've been able to do is the idea that the amino acids
assembled themselves on the backs of floating crystals in the ocean.

'I helr schemes and the things they
have tried to imagine just don't work.

If you take the cell and you poke a hole in it, you have
all the components for the cell there - and yet no life.

They will say, "I'hat's an origin of life
issue and I'm not going to deal with that.”

But you have to deal with if, because there is no
point in dealing with any of these other things

if you cannot even get an organism in the
first place... the problems are exponential.

People in the field actually know this but
go along with it anyway because, well...

The other disciplines of
science are where the real proof is.

S50, the geologists think that the real
proof is with the paleontologists.

'Ihe fossll-studiers think the
geophysicists have the proof.

'I'he geophysicists think it's the
astrophysicists that have the proof.

Everyone gets to the airport but thinks
that somebody else has bougnt the tickets!

'I hey would never do this in
any other area of their lives.

They are denying the obvious because of
their starting point: That there is no god.

A lot of people are enticed by this idea
because it takes god out of the picture.

Here's another way in which
young people are being conned.

Vwhen they read their textbooks and it's talking about changes in
finches beaks or changes you see in dogs, the word "evolution" is used.

But then the word “evolution” is also used for
molecules-to-man, so it's a "bait and switch" trick

just like all the other sequences, like
chimps gradually turning into humans,

and this little Bambi-looking
thing turning into horses,

those kinds of things that have been used for
evolution really don't belong in the textbooks

Alan feduccia, the head of
biology at unc-chapel hill,

says that it will be the paleontological
embarrassment of the twentieth century,

the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
[Hey are not a related lineage at all.

I get the question of dinosaurs
all the time... consider dragons.

Vwe see dragon legends in cultures all over the world.
We find petroglyphs, cave drawings and etchings.

And many of these are images of dragons are
creatures that we would call dinosaurs today.

But the word "dinosaur. Dian't exist
until it was invented in 1841

so before 1841, very often the word
“dragon” would have been used.

“Dragon” is more of an overarching term.

It would include flying reptiles and sea
reptiles, as well as things like the dinosaurs.

Now when it comes to evidence of dinosaurs and man living at
the same time, believe it or not we have an immense amount

when we look at ancient
histories from various cultures

ve get very detailed descriptions of creatures that
today, in our modern world, we would call dinosaurs.

In Genesis, in chapter 1,
we're told that on day 6,

god created the beasts of the earth and
everything that creeps upon the earth.

This would of course include dinosaurs. In the
past dinosaurs were simply known as: Dragons.

Even as late as the early 1900s, dictionaries
described dragons as "now rare” and "a huge serpent."

Not only do we find dinosaurs in cave drawings, carvings of figurines,
and even in cultural legends from the not-too-distant past,

put the Bible speaks descriptively of
creatures that sound like - dinosaurs.

In the book of job, god tells job to behold the
“behemoth” - a creature that job would have known

in fact, god specifically says that he
made the behemoth along with mankind.

And it describes behemoth as having a tall that sways
like a cedar tree, and bones as strong as iron.

He's so big that a raging
river is nothing to him.

The description of this massive creature fits the huge
sauropod dinosaurs we know of from the fossil record

'ihe Bible describes in great detail a
creature that sounds just like a dinosaur,

thousands of years before paleontologists
would rediscover and rename them.

My daughter, when she was younger,
came home from her kindergarten class

with a book that said that dinosaurs
lived 100 million years ago.

That is just an assertion,
they are just saying it.

They didn't observe this;
You can't repeat this.

It is man - fallible, imperfect men - who separate
man from dinosaurs by about 62 million years now.

You elther start with what god has to
say, or start with what man has to say.

God, who has always been there; He is perfect
and infallible, and he's the one who says...

That people and dinosaurs
walked the earth together.

A lot of people scoff at that, but if you look back in
history, nobody scoffed at that until recent times,

when people started to buy into this
concept of millions and billions of years.

One of the things that really helps to convince people of the
millions of years is that chart of the "geological column,”

where you see the rock layers and then you have the
timeline on the side with the millions of years.

And then you have the
bottom-awelling sea creatures.

And then fish, and amphibians, and reptiles, Ana
dinosaurs, and birds, and mammals, and people.

How did that "geological
column” get developed?

It was back in the late 16th and early 19th century that they
started to use certain "index fossils" to date a rock layer.

“Oh, well that rock layer is this old because we know that
the rock layers that have those fossils are this old"

you might ask, "how did they know how old the
fossils were?” good question. [Hey didn't

they were making an assumption about the
history of life. That assumption is invalid

remember this? 1he geologic column.

You were probably taught in school that each layer represents a
different period of time, and it was deposited over millions of years.

In reality, each layer is simply showing
the order of how things were buried.

Both land and sea creatures alike are
founda throughout the geologic column.

Sea creatures are found from the lowest to the
highest layers and even on top of mountains.

In fact, /9% of the earth's land surface is made up of
sedimentary layers, which are rock layers that formed in water.

Geologists also confess that the earth is
riddled with massively eroded features...

Like the Grand Canyon in America, the blyde river canyon
in South Africa, and the capertee valley in Australia.

And vet, they still refuse to
acknowledge a worldwide flood.

“There shall come in the last days scoftfers who are willingly
ignorant that the earth, being overflowed with water, perished."

2,000 years ago, Peter warned us that
this rejection of truth woulda happen.

Fossils are actually not the
evidence of the history of life.

They are the evidence of the death of all life during
Noah's flood, and how all those things got buried.

'I'here are sea creatures all the
way through the rock record.

And we find sea creatures on the
tops of our highest mountains!

There are sea creatures on the tops of the himalayas, the
alps, the andes, and the rockies. How did they get up there?

Creatures that don't have any hard
parts; Like fossilized worms.

Even fossilized animal manure; That's not going to be
fossilized slowly over hundreds or thousands of years.

Those are some of the biblical and scientific reasons
why we should not accept those millions of years.

A lot of people think that the biblical chronology couldn't be
true because the Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old.

That is very, very different than saying
that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

How do we know that it
is 4.5 billion years?

Because it's only ever stated: “It's
4.5 billion years. We know that.”

Well, how do you know that?
"Radioactive dating.”

A lot of people think that carbon dating proves
that the rocks are millions of years old

carbon dating is never used to date the rocks.
It is only used to date former living things.

No evolutionist uses carbon-14, because even
if it worked the way they thought it did,

it can only go out to 110,000 years maximum, even
using the new accelerator mass spectrometer method.

The half-life of carpbon-14 is so short
that you should not fina any carbon-14 in

anything older than 100,000 years, which should
not have even one atom that we could detect

'i'he fact that people are routinely
finding significant levels of c-14...

In all these different fossils indicates
something is wrong with the dating methods.

The half-life of carbon-14 is very short,
so it's never used to date the rocks

it is the other methods: Uranium changing
into lead, potassium into argon...

Rubidium into strontium, and they
have really long half-lives.

All of those, including carbon-14,
depend on 4 basic assumptions:

1. You somehow have to be able to estimate
the original amount of the “parent” isotope.

2. You have to somehow calculate the
original amount of the "daughter isotope.

'I'here are little detective-forensic
ways, but no truly scientific method...

No rigorous ways to actually determine
the beginning of that rock.

3. I'hey also have to assume that the rate at which, for
example, uranium decays into lead, has always been constant.

But they have only been measuring the
decay rates for a hundred years now.

Ve have learned that pressure, magnetic
fields, and heat can change the decay rates

radioactive lutetium decays nine trillion
times faster in the plasma state...

And evolutionists, believe that the
whole universe began in a plasma state.

And one more: 4. You have to assume that the
sample has been in a closed system the entire time

scientists who are well-informed on this
issue, with phds in geology and physics...

They say that there are problems with
every one of those four assumptions.

But if even just one of these assumptions doesn't go
their way, then the entire possibility drops to zero.

There is no reason to trust that these methods
are giving us the true age of the rocks

I would play the lottery with my life savings
rather than bet on something like that!

In 2009, Mary schweitzer, a paleontologist and evolutionist, made
the first popularized discovery of soft tissues in a dinosaur bone,

which included blood vessels and cells, DNA
and proteins - all of which decay quickly.

Mary schweitzer herself sald,

“this flies in the face of everything we understand about how
tissues and cells degrade. I can't explain it, to be honest."

Schweltzer can't explain it, and neither can her
colleagues, who also cling to the evolutionary paradigm.

To illustrate the problem, let's
travel back to the early 1700s:

That was a time when biblical catastrophism
was the accepted geological view.

If people then found a dinosaur bone

with soft tissue and remnants of blood
still in it, would they be confused?

Of course not. Hey would simply conclude
that this was a creature that died...

And was buried during or after the flood,
I.E. Within the past few thousand years.

Now let's fast-forward to today. Vvould people be
confused to find the same thing in a dinosaur bone?

Of course, many people would, because the evidence we find doesn't
match the evolutionary time-scale we've been conditioned to believe.

Many textbooks say that the peppered moth,
industrial melanism in england, is evolution

well if that's all that
evolution is, I believe!

The dark-colored peppered moths were more
camouflaged than the light-colored peppered moths.

As a result, the birds could see the lighter
ones and eat them for lunch a lot easier.

It's not an evolutionary event at all.
It's a natural selection event.

Natural selection means to pick or choose;

fo select from what is already there, traits that were
already there, genetic information that was already there.

This process will never get you from clams or algae
sorts of things in the ocean turning into moths.

It will never get you from monkeys turning into people.
This process cant make one step in that direction.

Natural selection may be able to explain "the survival of the
fittest,” but it cannot explain "the arrival of the fittest."

“How did we get moths in the first place?” that's the
question evolution claims to answer but cannot and does not

instead, they just go look at how the colors shifted. Before
the magic of evolution, there were white moths and black moths

after the magic of evolution, there
were white moths and black moths.

That would also happen it Darwin was wrong; It
doesn't have anything to ao with Darwin's theory.

The types of changes that were seeing that lead to variation within
"kinds" are not the types of changes that are required by evolution.

There is variation within the kind, but not the
evolution of one kind becoming another kind

in the creation account, it says that god created "according fo their
kind," or "after their kind" - not through any evolutionary processes.

You don't have one "kind" developing into another kind
or sort. They are all created according to their kind.

So even though you get variety, they
are not changing into other things.

Bacteria are not changing
into more complex creatures.

Yes, you can have great
variation within a kind.

You can get different species forming, which is
what Darwin really saw. But there are limits

ihere are no mechanisms there at all
in genetics to add in new information

that never existed in order to change
it into a totally different kind.

Dogs always remain dogs. Cats always remain cats. [Here
is nothing in observational science to contradict that

every animal will bring
forth "after its own kind."

You can observe that in the existing
creation and in the fossil record.

Genesis passes the tests of the
scientific method. Evolution doesn't.

'I'he fact of the matter is that the
information is stronger than it has ever been.

In the past five years there has
been a quantum jump in the data.

The new discoveries actually go against evolutionary
thinking and make it more and more preposterous;

data that's against the evolutionary
theory and actually makes it untrue.

The creationists are finding more and more ammunition in the
new scientific data - not in theories - but in the data,

which prompted eugenie Scott to say that facts are a
dime a dozen; Theories are what matter in science

you know what? [Tis unbelievable what
unbelievers have to believe to be unbelievers!

Come to me when you can 'show me the
money.” do you have facts or not?

Do you have data”? Do you have observations?
Do you have the scientific method or not?

Contrary to what scientist bill nye said, we really
should tell our children what our beliefs are and why.

We should not just say, "I his is
what to believe, Johnny..." But say,

“here is why we believe this and it's not just
faith. Vwe have science. It's really on our side"

"And god sald...

Let the earth bring forth the
living creature after nis kind,

Cattle, and creeping thing, and
beasts of the earth after his kind.

And it was so.

And god made the beasts of
the earth after his kind.

And cattle after their kind.

And every thing that creeps
upon the earth after his kind.

And god saw that it was good.”

Evolutionists believe that
approximately © million years ago,

humans and today's apes shared a common ancestor
back at a biological “fork in the road"

'i'hat creature is often referred
to as an "ape-like creature.”

They don't like to call it an “ape” because they
will argue that this creature evolved into apes.

And then apes evolving into
apes is hot impressive.

I'm prepared to accept that
ape-like creatures produced apes.

I have a little trouble with the idea that ape-like creatures became
humans, and of course that's the whole realm of the "ape-men."

Most people are taught anthropology
from a secular worldview nowadays.

And when they do that, they are
taught an entirely different history.

People are taught that we evolved from
some ape-like ancestor out of Africa.

They migrated out of Africa to the middle
east. Vwe got a little bit smarter.

We went from hunters and
gatherers to become farmers.

'Then after that we developed
some civilizations.

We see mesopotamia, or Egypt, or the
indus valley; Things like that.

Then people got even smarter and we were able to start
building boats and going around to different places.

And all of the sudden, we see places
like the Roman empire pop up.

Then we transfer all the way up to england
becoming one of the most powerful nations on earth

then we transfer over to the americas: And here we are.
[Hats the kind of anthropology that we were taught.

But if you go back 200 years ago and look at anthropology from that
perspective Ana for the 2,000 years before that, nobody believed that.

That is actually a relatively new idea
based on an evolutionary worldview.

If you start with god and his word, then
anthropology starts with Adam and Eve.

God creates Adam and Eve!

You see, what the Bible says, what Genesis says, is that
on the sixth day of the world, god made two humans.

He made a whole bunch of monkeys. He never made any "monkey-numans”
but that's what they are always looking for in the fossils.

Over time, one by one, all of the "missing link" fossils have been
reclassified as either over to the human side or over to the monkey side.

Even “Lucy”

was dismissed by johanson himself,
saying that Lucy had been dethroned.

Meet "Lucy - the nasal bones do not protrude. Do
you notice any slope at all to the face? Of course

compare the zygomatic arch to the slope: Clearly, ape-like. Vvhat
about the forehead: Is it flat or curved? Absolutely flat.

When we look from the side, the bone
comes way out on this flat forehead.

And it is very difficult to see if there
are orbits when viewed from the side

finally: Cranial capacity. Lucy has a small brain by ape
standards; Never mind a much larger human-sized brain.

Lucy had a brain one-third
the size of ours.

At full growth, as a full-grown female Lucy was
only 62 pounds, 3.0 feet tall: This was a chimp.

As for the drawings and skeletal
diagrams of her standing upright,

this probably would have been very unnatural and painful, the
toe bones being curved even more than on a modern chimp,

and many other things
about the fingers too.

Lucy had a "divergent big toe" as they are calling
it now as they have discovered more of the fossils:

That means a thumb on the foot.
Lucy was actually a chimp!

The quest for the elusive missing-link
fossil between ape-like creatures and humans

has given rise to some of the grossest
examples of evolutionary propaganda to date.

“Lucy,” whom they claim is our distant
relative, is perhaps the worst.

To see why, let's isolate a
scanned replica of the Lucy skull

and place it next to the skull
of a modern chimpanzee.

Vwhat becomes immediately apparent is that the two skulls are nearly
identical, with the exception that Lucy's brain cavity is even smaller.

To Fuller illustrate this, let's pass the
Lucy skull into the chimpanzee skull.

With the two skulls now on top of each other, it seems
incredibly clear that "Lucy" was just a type of chimpanzee.

To further illustrate the point, let's now pass
the Lucy skull into that of a modern human.

To be gracious, even if we scale Lucy up,
she still doesn't come close [o being human

vwhat would your conclusion be on a
creature like this”? Clearly, it's an ape.

In fact, what is Lucy's scientific name”?
Australopithecus: [Hat means "Southern ape."

Whatever else we could say
about Lucy, she is an ape.

Lel's look at another presumed ancestor of man,
or a "pre-nomo sapiens.” it's neanderthal man

'ihe problem with neanderthals
is that when I was in college,

they taught us that they were the "missing
link" and that they could barely grunt.

And now we found out that the hypoglossal
canal (a hole at the base of the skull

had a hypoglossal nerve

that was the same size in neanderthals
as in modern people toqaay.

Monkeys though have just a
little, thin thread-like nerve.

They have the “hardware” but they just don't
have the "software drivers” to actually talk

they think; They have thoughts and probably
emotions, but they just can't do that like we can.

Neanderthals, however,
obviously could talk.

We have every bone in neanderthal man's
body. [Here's not a missing bone.

So, we know that the nasal bone is
protruded, just as you see it there.

Even this nasal spine down here - which is found just under
your nose - the nasal spine is not found on apes either.

So, we have the spine and we have the protruding nose.
What about the slope of the face? Perpendicular.

What about the curvature of the foreneaa? It's curved enough
that you can see into the orbits quite easily from the side.

Finally, cranial capacity. If you compare this skull to an adult
modern human skull, it's about 100 cubic centimeters or more larger.

Vwhat would your conclusion be” is this an ape
or is this a human? It's obviously a human.

But if I's a human, we expect to find more than just simply the
bones. Vve expect some cultural evidence, and we have that.

Since the time that I was in college in the 1970s, we've found
turquoise and pink-colored flax fibers in neanderthal caves.

They liked colorful clothing. They were built
better than us. They also had bigger brains than us

in the average human today, the brain
case is 1200 cubic centimeters.

But in neanderthals, it was
1400 cubic centimeters.

We have thelr burial customs. We have
thelr tools of all different kinds.

They were good hunters.
[Hey had strategies.

They took women on their hunting trips. One evolutionist
actually said that might be why they went extinct.

Recently, they've founda what is arguably a cosmetics kit:
A couple of scallop shells unhinged with pigments in them.

They have found what appear to be flutes with holes in
positions to be playable buried with neanderthal man.

We found a musical instrument: A bare bone
with holes drilled in it like a flute.

1 don't know if you've ever heard a monkey
play a flute, but it really doesn't work.

We find flowers buried in the graves of their dead. But animals,
like monkeys, don't bury their dead. Only humans do that.

'I'he neanderthals had art, religion,
culture, language... unquestionably human!

And yet, when I first bought this model of neanderthal man
it was called a homo sapiens, subspecies: Neanderthalensis.

In other words, they gave it
a different subspecies name.

Today, the scientific name for neanderthal
man is: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

and that third word is actually the designation
of the “variety” of humans that it is.

We modern humans are now classified
as homo sapiens sapiens.

So what creation has been saying all along
is true: Neanderthals were people too!

100% human. And that's true for the
whole body, not just the skull.

The same experiment can be
done with neanderthals,

which evolutionists still claim is another
branch in the transition from apes to humans

let's place the skull of a neanderthal
next to the skull of a modern human.

The neanderthal has the same facial structures. Vve
all know that everyone has a uniquely-shaped skull.

Some people have larger heads; Some have wider cheek bones,
broader jaws and brow ridges, or more slope to their foreheads.

With the right combination of these traits that we see in people
today, it is easy to see how a neanderthal is simply a human.

Everyone has been told that
there are dozens and dozens

of these solid missing-link fossils - transitional
forms - "so-and-sso” man, and java man,

and plitdown man, and cro-magnon
man, and neanderthal man...

Essentially, all of homo erectus
would be just human beings.

Don't just believe modern myths of the “proofs” of
evolution like “junk” DNA, like "missing-link" fossils.

The secular world teaches that you evolved from some
ape-like ancestor; That there was no Adam and Eve

and since there's no Adam and Eve, then
there was no fall into sin back in Genesis.

And that means that there
is no need for a savior.

So, the secular anthropology not only attacks the authority
of the Bible - it also attacks the very gospel itself.

"And god said...

Let us make man

In our image...

After our likeness

And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle

And over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

I was debating the student atheist club
president, at the college of New Jersey.

He made the statement in his closing comments that there were "dozens
of fossils” that proved the transition from simians to humans.

And I said, "now, you said that there were
dozens' of fossils. Can you name one?”

He said, "well, the literature is just replete...”
blah blah blah, "... I here are so many."

And I said, "I dian't ask for many. I just
asked you for one. Just tell the audience ohe"

and he sald, "australopithecus africanus.”
I said to the audience," okay...

I stood up and I said, "now we're
going to learn about modern myths.”

One of the common misconceptions that exists in
society is that "numans and chimps are 99% similar."

I am very disillusioned by the idea of using a percentage
to describe how similar humans and chimps are.

You cannot use a percent similarity
to describe common ancestry!

One of the most popular misconceptions held by
evolutionists is that biras evolved from dinosaurs

what proof do they have - you might ask?

Well, just look at their similar design - they might say -
pointing out that both birds and some dinosaurs have hollow bones

but common features like these - can also be
understood as evidence for - a common designer,

who didn't need to "reinvent the wheel”
every time he created a new kind.

Humans and frogs both have five digits on their lower limbs, but
that doesn't mean frogs and humans share a common ancestor...

Unless you believe fairy tales, of course!

It's not too surprising that our chromosomes
100k a lot the same as a chimpanzee's.

Of all other living things, their biochemistry, their physiology,
and their body structures look the most like us humans

their DNA ought to look the most like ours too. For goodness
sake, bananas have DNA that is 50% the same as ours.

S50, monkeys should have 80, 90, 98% the same DNA
because their boaies look that much like ours

if evolution was not true, and
there is a designer instead,

1.e. A creator god who made those chromosomes in the
beginning, then this is what it would look like

you start looking at the genome and the DNA differences
and you try to figure out: How different are we?

Vwhat makes humans different from everything else”? This "image
of god" as the Latin phrase "imago dei." What does that mean?

We're not animals. Vere different from the
animals. Human beings have court systems.

Vwe believe in justice and truth and in righteousness because
we are made in the image of god. We are moral creations.

Wwhen you read through Genesis 1, it
comes to the pinnacle at the very end.

Aumans are created, and:
Behold it was very good.”

Now when god says that something
is very good, how good is it?

It was a perfect creation
where there was no death.

God made the world perfect. There was no death or
bloodshed at first according to Genesis 1:29-30

originally, all of the animals were
vegetarian, and mankind was vegetarian.

We weren't allowed to eat
meat until after the flood.

That's when god first permitted
mankind to eat meat.

People didn't kill animals for food.
Animals didn't rip each other up for food.

Both mankind and the
animals were vegetarian.

Ror those who don't believe god's vora, they're living
in the present, and they look around and see death

so they assume that death
has always been here.

Vwwhen I look at the human body, I see something that looks like it
was designed to last forever, because we keep turning over our parts.

That's the way our body is. We were
originally created to live forever.

If your car was operating the way we do,
where all the parts kept turning over,

then you scratch the paint and it
heals, how long would your car last?

It would last forever. So,
with us something went wrong.

And that flaw was sin that came into the world. Decay
and death came as a result of man's disobedience

so, if evolution is true, you have "millions of years”
of death before man ever sinned ...To bring about death?

We really have a huge theological problem
if we accept those "'millions” of years.

If we accept the millions of years, then we are
accepting "millions of years" of death and bloodshed,

and disease and violence - all
before man comes on the scene.

But the Bible says that god created the world
at the beginning, and that it was very good.

There was no death, and no
disease or natural disasters.

It was sin that brought that death
and natural evil into the world.

What was the world like in the beginning?

The Bible describes the early earth as paradise,
a lush and beautiful world from pole to pole.

A world where man, animals, and plants
of all kinds lived in perfect Harmony.

A world without sickness,
disease, pain, or death.

This "golden age” of the past, reported
to us accurately in the Bible,

is also remembered in the legends of
human cultures throughout our history,

where man and animals grew to be larger
and live much longer than we do today.

Scientific discoveries reveal fossil representatives
of every major kind of plant and animal,

that are many times larger than
their present-day counterparts.

There were fossil insects as large as modern dogs, fossil birds
with 25-foot wingspans, fossil trees nearly 900-feet tall.

And fish as big as our modern whales, to name
a few. Loday, earth is not paradise anymore.

So, we must ask: When was:
Paradise lost? And why?

And will we ever see it again?

"So god
created man in his own image.

In the image of god created he him.

Male and female created he them

And god blessed them, and god sald
unto them, be fruitful, and multiply.

And fill the earth, and subdue it.

And have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the birds of the air.

And over every living thing
that moves upon the earth.

And god said, behold, I have given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth

and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; To you it shall be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of
the air, and to everything that creeps upon the earth,

wherein there is life, I have
given every green herb for meat.

And it was so.

And god saw everything that he had made.

And behold it was very good.

And the evening and the
morning were the sixth day.

Every civilization has a story - a story of who god is,
who we are here, why the world is the way that it is.

Vwwhat the Bible offers is not just a story -
but the story. It tells us why we're important.

It also tells us why the world is broken.

Why do we all get so frustrated that things
shouldn't be this way when we're at a funeral?

Why do we find ourselves saying, vvhy
do bad things happen to good people?

And why do good things happen to bad
people?” Genesis explains that.

'Ihe fall into sin was a real
spiritual and historical event.

Real people in history actually violated a law of god,
that causea our entire race and the creation to fall

vwhen Adam and Eve sinned against god, god cursed the
ground, he cursed the animals, and he sentenced man to die.

Everything changed. [Hey
realized that they were naked.

They realized that they were ashamed, and the first
thing that they did was try to cover themselves

but those coverings were not good enough. [He punishment
for sin was death, so the solution had to involve death

at the very beginning, when Adam and Eve are making their first
mistakes and shame and guilt are coming into the equation,

god immediately gives them a solution: He's going to
send someone to bring forgiveness to this problem.

In fact, he immeaiately covered them. God comes and says
that he covers our shame and he forgives our guilt.

The reality of the world is the fact that goa
exists, and that we are separated from god by sin.

We sin by nature. We sin by choice.
You can agree with everything I say.

You can believe that the world is only thousands of
years old, and you can think that god created it

but if you believe that god exists - but that's
as far as it goes - you've missed the point.

You looked at the billboard - you've seen
the ad - but you've missed the point.

The pointis this: It's about a relationship
with him; Restoring that relationship with him!

And the god of the universe loved us enough to
demonstrate his invisible attributes everywhere.

So that everyone has evidence of him. Vwherever you live, in whatever
time period you live, through the telescope or the microscope.

And he's calling out to you to have a relationship
with him. It's not good enough to just believe in god.

Vwhat good does it do if you lead somebody to believe
in an “intelligent designer” who is vaguely defined?

We need to respond to the creator and
he has spoken uniquely in his vora.

And he has told us in the Bible how we can
be restored to a right relationship with god

god is indeed a god of love, but re is also the
righteous judge, and sin has to be accounted for

the god of the Bible is not only merciful
and kind, but he is also holy and just.

And every time we sin, we store up his wrath
that will be revealed on the day of judgment.

God has appointed a day in which he
will judge the world in righteousness.

You are a moral creation: You have to give an
account to god for every idle word you've spoken;

every deed done in darkness will
be brought out into the light.

And if that happens on judgment day and youre found
guilty, the Bible says that you're heading for hell.

But look at the great flood. Did
everybody die in the flood”? No.

Even though there was a judgment upon sin,
the lord god still sent a means of salvation

that's a lesson for us today. He
great flood was god's judgment.

But at the same that judgment was
there, he provided an ark of salvation.

For those people in that day, there was a means of
escape: Everybody on board Noah's ark was spared.

'Those not on board the ark perished.
[He same is true in our day and age.

God provides for us an ark of salvation.
His name is: Jesus Christ.

God loves us and he has
provided a way of salvation,

to the point that he sent his own son into the worla to
satisfy god's conaition of death as the penalty for sin.

He took the full penalty of death that should have been
ours upon rimself and paid it in full, by himself, for us.

And he wants you to come to
aim and find his forgiveness.

That forgiveness was so costly that he came to earth and
put on matter himself, and allowed himself to be crucified

a crown of thorns was pushed into his head. Nails like railroad
spikes were pounded into his wrists and into his feet.

And he did that not because he had to.
He did that because he loved you.

And he knew that if he aidn't;
If there was any other way...

If there was any other way, if it wasn't necessary,
then god would not have put his only son through it.

He wouldn't have turned his back on
him and allowed the sin of all humans

past, present, Ana future - to be laid
upon his son, Jesus, as the "scape goat.”

Jesus had to go to the cross.
He had to be crucified.

He had to die one of the most grueling
deaths known in the history of mankind.

And so, Jesus Christ died for your sins, and
my sins, and for the sins of the whole world

we need Jesus Christ. He is the
solution to the problem of sin.

That is indeed the Christian gospel. Hat
is indeed the good news of the Bible.

But it's only good news because it's based on the bad
news in Genesis, because of what Adam and Eve did

and because were all one human race;
Because were all descendants of them.

We're all born with that sin
nature and that tendency to sin.

If there wasn't an original sin, if we aren't
born into sin and in need of a savior,

if we are born "okay" then maybe we could just be
"good” and we wouldn't heed Jesus to die for us

but that's just not reality. It's not
good theology. Itisn't even good logic.

Just as god made one man who brought death into
the world, Jesus is the new man who brings life.

Just as there was Noah's ark which had only one way in.
Only one way of deliverance to save you from judgment.

So too, Jesus Christ comes and says, I
am the vay and the [Ruth and the life.”

By coming to Jesus, although there is a future judgment
coming, he has made a way of rescue from that judgment.

Just as Abraham had only one covenant son,
Isaac, whom he was willing to sacrifice,

Jesus is the only begotten son of the promise, and
our heavenly father was willing to sacrifice him

and then there's Joseph who was rejected, thrown into the
pit, thought to be dead, but later found to be alive!

That sounds a lot like Jesus Christ
in the Bible's new I estament!

And then we move into the exodus and we
see that he is the ultimate deliverer.

He's the ultimate passover;
He's the ultimate lawgiver.

Jesus is all over in Genesis and the deeper you look into if,
the more you find that the whole book points directly to him.

And so right here in Genesis, chapter
1, it's all about Jesus Christ.

We call Jesus Christ "ihe vora.” reis" ihe vord
of god.” he is the way by which we can know god

vwho has ever had his hame used as a cuss
word? Noboaqy... except: Jesus Christ.

He sald, [he world hates me because I
testify of its deeds, that they are evil.”

And so we use his hame in blasphemy. Ihe name that
is above all names. We lust, we lie, we steal.

That's why we have suffering,
disease, pain, and death.

But it gives great hope for this
fallen creation that is in death,

that god invaded this world, and through the cross
opened up the doors of everlasting life for humanity.

Jesus Christ, the son of god who is infinite, he became a
man and died that infinite punishment that we all deserve.

The infinite son took that infinite punishment from the
infinite father, and that aatisfied the wrath of god

now the lord god offers us the free
gift of salvation as a result.

And that's the god whom I love
hats the god whom I want to know.

I want to know him because he loved me enough not just
to sort of watch from a distance and love everybody.

He loved me enough to "get in the game” and to die
on my behalf. And that is the story of the Bible.

Jesus Christ, who walked the earth as a man, is the one
who loved us enough to take upon himself our punishment.

To go to the cross, to taste death, to shed his blood
so that we could be with rim in heaven forever

'those who reject him spend
eternity separated from god.

What a horror that any human being could end
up in that terrible place: Damned in hell

and so, we plead with people and say, listen, god is
rich in mercy and he provided a savior in Jesus Christ!

God became a human being. He suffered and died on the
cross fo take the punishment for the sin of the world.

We broke god's law and Jesus paid
our fine." It's as simple as that.

If someone pays your fine, the judge can say,
youre out of here. Your case is dismissed!"

That is what god can do for you and I.
Our sins can be washed away!

God can commute our death sentence
and let us live forever -

pecause of the suffering, death,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What we are commanded to do is repent
of our sins and trust only in Jesus.

Anyone who would repent, who would
turn from their sin, who would say,

“god, I'm a sinner. I deserve your judgment. But I
put my trust in Jesus Christ as my I ord and savior"

'i'hat person can be forgiven and restored
to a right relationship with the creator.

Ve have to believe in the true and living god who
is the god and father of our lord Jesus Christ

and we heed to trust in
him for our salvation

"Genesis: Paradise lost” - english
sub-titles - www.genesismovie.com